IN THE MIDDLE: HOW THE EXPERIENCE DEFINES MID … · IN THE MIDDLE: HOW THE EXPERIENCE DEFINES...

IN THE MIDDLE: HOW THE EXPERIENCE DEFINES MID-CAREER FOR STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS

By

Michael E. Houdyshell

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

2007

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One

Introduction 5 Purpose 6 Research Questions 8 Background of Study 9 The Graduate Student/New Professional Experience 10 The Mid-Career Experience 12 Defining Mid-Career 14 Significance of Study 17 Organization of Study 18 Chapter Two

Introduction 20 Mid-Career Professionals in Private Industry 21 Professional and Career Development of Faculty 23 Professional Development of University Administrators 30 Student Affairs Professionals 34 Attrition in Student Affairs 49 Conceptual Framework 52 Summary of Literature Review 60 Chapter Three 63 Introduction 63 Methodology 64

3

Participants 65 Research Questions 67 Data Collection Methods 67 Qualitative Sampling Limitations 77 Conclusion 78 Chapter Four 80 The Mid-Career Student Affairs Experience 80 Defining Mid-Career 84 Mid-Career: Between Two Worlds 89 How Student Affairs Defines Mid-Career 91 Rooted in Two Worlds 95 The Convergence of Professional and Personal Lives at Mid-Career 118 Summary 134 Chapter Five 135 Professional and Personal Support at Mid-Career 135 Why They Stay or Leave, and How to Keep Them 159 Summary 182 Chapter Six 184 Research Questions, Methodology, and Sample 184 Major Study Findings 186 Implications 189 Future Research 195 Conclusion 202

4

References 205 Appendix A 214 Appendix B 216 Appendix C 219

5

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

Even though the first official mission statement of student affairs was not

published until 1937, called the Student Personnel Point of View, the work of the field

has existed in the American higher education system for much longer (Doyle, 2004).

Once regarded by faculty as the caretakers of students while not in class, student affairs

has matured into a valuable partner in supporting the educational success of college

students (Astin, 1984). As the area of student affairs has evolved over the years into a

solid, professional field in institutions of higher education, so has the need to understand

the experiences of its working professionals. This includes how student affairs

professionals develop professionally over their career life span. By using research to

understand the career development and experiences of its professionals, student affairs

will continue to remain a viable partner in the educational mission of higher education

(Arnold, 1982; Carpenter, 1990; Fey & Carpenter, 1996; Harned & Murphy, 1998;

Wood, Winston, & Polkosnik, 1985).

For the purpose of my study, student affairs professionals are individuals who

work with students either directly or indirectly in areas such as residential life, student

activities, counseling, career placement, student union management, or leadership

development. Separated into three distinct professional segments in student affairs (new,

mid, and senior), researchers have studied the professional development of individuals in

these segments as they move through their career. However, in comparison to the

research on new and senior professionals in student affairs, less research has focused on

6

the largest group of individuals in student affairs: mid-career professionals. In my study, I

begin to examine the professional experiences of mid-career student affairs professionals

and explore how the experiences of these individuals greatly affect their professional

development in the field.

Purpose of Study

During the last 25 years, one way researchers have attempted to better understand

the professional development experiences of student affairs professionals was to examine

issues like professional development, attrition, and overall career satisfaction in student

affairs. Much of the research on professional development in student affairs has focused

on new and senior-level professionals (Arnold, 1982; Barr, 1990; Blimling, 2002; Harder,

1983; Harned & Murphy, 1998; Lunsford, 1984; Richard & Sherman, 1991; Rickard,

1982; Ward, 1995; Wood, Winston, & Polkosnik, 1985). However, research on mid-

career professionals has focused less on professional development and more on issues

such as skill transferability beyond student affairs, skills senior-level professionals are

seeking when hiring mid-managers, or includes this group within larger studies involving

mid-level administrators in higher education (Carpenter, Guido-DiBrito, & Kelly, 1987;

Gordon, Strode-Border, & Mann, 1993; Komives, 1992; Rosser & Javinar, 2003; Rosser,

2004; Young, 1990). The existing literature fails to make any connection between the

mid-career experience, professional development, and the intention to stay in field

(Carpenter & Miller, 1990; Fey & Carpenter, 1996).

As mid-career professionals represent a large segment of the student affairs

workforce, attention should be paid to their professional experiences, development, and

intention to stay in the field because mid-career individuals become the core group of

7

experienced professionals advancing into senior-level positions in student affairs

(Gordon, Strode-Border, & Mann, 1993). Any factors accelerating their premature

departure from the field create a significant loss of skills and knowledge in the field, and

a lack of talented professionals advancing into senior-level positions. It is also unclear

how the mid-career experience is defined compared to new professionals (fewer years in

the field) or senior-level professionals (vice-president or dean). Therefore, the purpose of

the current study was to chronicle the experiences of individuals who self-define as mid-

career professionals in student affairs, and examine how the challenges and supports they

face at mid-career influence their professional development, satisfaction and intention to

stay in the field.

With the limited availability of research on the experiences of mid-career student

affairs professionals, the need for continued study of this topic is important for increasing

the awareness of how these individuals develop professionally and remain connected to

the field. By defining this segment more clearly and studying mid-career professionals’

experiences more thoroughly, the field and institutions are able to create a more

professionally enriching mid-career experience, which, in turn, promotes engagement and

vitality within the segment, institutions, and the field. Without more research in the mid-

career experience, student affairs faces a possible drain of its most talented middle

managers and professionals, whose experiences are virtually unknown to their new or

senior colleagues in the field (Benke & Disque, 1990; Carpenter, Guido-DiBrito, &

Kelly, 1987; Evans, 1988). Understanding the mid-career experience helps the field and

institutions create professional development opportunities that specifically address the

8

unique challenges and needs of this segment, and helps ensure that these individuals, who

make up the core of the profession, remain vital, energized, and professionally viable.

Research on the mid-career experience, including an examination of the

professional development needs, challenges, and satisfaction of this period timeframe

raises the level of knowledge for this large segment of professionals working in higher

education. This can provide best practices for the field and institutions and minimize

periods of professional dissatisfaction and disengagement resulting in professional

stagnation and exodus from the field. (Fey & Carpenter, 1996; Komives, 1992). It could

also prevent erosion of the partnering role student affairs increasingly occupies with

academics in the educational process in higher education. Such an erosion of educational

significance not only affects mid and senior-level practitioners, but it also migrates into

the ranks of new professionals entering the field.

Research Questions

The following questions served as a guide for my research in this study:

1. What are the experiences of individuals who self-define as “mid-career professionals”

in student affairs?

2. How do these individuals define “mid-career”?

3. What challenges and supports are present for mid-career professionals in institutions

and student affairs professional organizations?

4. How do the challenges and supports affecting mid-career professionals influence their

decision to stay or leave student affairs?

9

Background of the Study

Currently, there is no specific undergraduate major or degree directly related to

student affairs; many individuals enter the profession as recent graduates of masters

programs (Cliente, Henning, Skinner Jackson, Kennedy, & Sloan, 2006). There are

currently 198 graduate programs specifically designed to prepare individuals for work in

student affairs at colleges and universities across the United States (NASPA on-line,

2005). The lack of undergraduate preparation in student affairs hinders understanding for

practicing professionals of why individuals choose to enter the profession. Often graduate

students in student affairs had a strong co-curricular experience as an undergraduate

student in areas such as residence life or student activities (Harned & Murphy, 1998;

Richmond & Sherman, 1991).

The undergraduate experience can often generate an interest in pursing a career in

student affairs and beginning a graduate program. In the graduate program, future

practitioners are introduced to the career phases of the student affairs professional – early,

mid-, and senior-level. These career phases have been created and supported by scholars,

practitioners, and the field, and are most often based on title or position, years in the field,

and responsibility. Even professional associations, such as ACPA and NASPA support

these three distinct career phases by sponsoring institutes and workshops specifically

designed for different phases, such as the New Professionals Institute, Mid-Level

Managers Institutes and Senior Student Affairs Officers Institute, (ACPA, 2007;

NASPA, 2007). The experiences felt during each career period are often unique and

specific to that classification. The next section examines two of the three career phases:

10

graduate student/new professionals and mid-career, and how this research has attempted

to examine professional experiences within each group.

The Graduate Student/New Professional Experience

Once individuals finish a student affairs graduate program and have accepted their

first professional position, it can remain unclear why they have chosen to enter the

profession except perhaps as a result of having had a positive undergraduate experience

(Richmond & Sherman, 1991). This lack of understanding could explain why attrition

rates for new professionals range from 32% to 61% during their first six years of entering

the position (Evans, 1988; Hancock, 1988). Without understanding their professional

experience, the field often struggles to understand why individuals begin working in

student affairs and reasons why they stay or leave (Holmes, Verrier, & Chisolm, 1983;

Wood, Winston, & Polkosnik, 1985). Additionally, Hancock (1988) argued most students

in student affairs graduate programs are not receiving any career preparation or

orientation to the actual field before even becoming new professionals. To better

understand the new professional experience and how issues such as retention and attrition

impact this experience, some literature calls for more research conducted at the graduate

student level (Holmes, Verrier, & Chisolm, 1983).

As individuals become new professionals, there is more research about their

professional experiences and how this influences issues such as professional

development, career satisfaction, and attrition. As defined by the literature, new

professionals are considered individuals with less than three years of related experience

in the field, including new graduates of masters programs in student affairs (Barr, 1990;

Bender, 1980; Richmond & Sherman, 1991). Bender found issues, such as dedication

11

service and independence highly valued by new professionals as part of an overall

professional experience. However, he also found new professionals aged 23-36 appeared

more dissatisfied with their current positions than did individuals older than 37 years.

Additionally, 41% of new professionals indicated they were undecided about remaining

in the student affairs field and 31% reported they were definitely not staying in the field

(Bender,1980).

Job satisfaction of new professionals has also been researched during the last 25

years. Richmond and Sherman’s (1991) study found only 39% of new professionals

(within three years of graduating) were satisfied, given the perceived lack of career

advancement in student affairs. When researching attrition among student affairs

professionals, Evans (1988) found a significant number chose to leave the field because

of their belief in the lack of career mobility. According to Barr (1990) a significant

consideration for new professionals is the “pyramid look to the career ladder” (p. 60).

When specifically examining why new professionals might stay or leave the field,

Barr (1990) described both positive and negative issues related to the attrition of new

professionals in student affairs. For example, she reported sometimes people find a

congruence or good fit between their preferred career reward structures and the field of

student affairs. However, she noted that new professionals also may face value conflicts

between what they entered the field to do and what they actually do. She did not,

however, view this as particularly negative for the profession but rather considered it a

natural development of career patterns.

Lorden (1998) questioned if career satisfaction issues like attrition in student

affairs was “inherently negative and a cause for concern” (p. 211). Citing the lack of

12

longitudinal studies that examined the professional experiences and the conditions that

influence career decisions in student affairs as cause for concern he called for more

research on this topic, which he contends “could be invaluable to our understanding of

individuals’ goals and experiences” (p. 214). According to Lorden (1998), studies of this

type could also address “the question of whether people leave the profession because of

dissatisfaction or simply to pursue attractive career alternatives” (p. 214). Interestingly,

Lorden (1998) noted that research on attrition in most other professions outside of student

affairs does not even exist. As research examined the job satisfaction and propensity to

leave the field as part of the overall professional experience of new professionals, less is

known about the experience of mid-career professionals.

The Mid-Career Experience

Because research on the experiences of mid-career professionals in student affairs

is limited, this is a particularly important area on which to focus. A recent publication

documenting the stories of women in student affairs and how they dealt with mid-career

issues was released in 2004. One reason Renn and Hughes (2004) cited for focusing

solely on mid-career was an abundance of research in the areas of new professionals and

senior administrators in student affairs. In contrast, they cited the little attention paid to

mid-career professionals in the field, as well as the lack of resources for mid-career

professionals, as significant reasons to focus entirely on the topic of mid-career and the

experiences of different individuals. In editing the book Roads Taken (2004), these

researchers concentrated on the lives of mid-career student affairs professionals,

specifically women, highlighting the challenges and possibilities of mid-career work and

life. Renn and Hughes (2004, p. xviii) shared a definition of mid-career based on the

13

conception of Teresa Carter (2002) that includes “a shifting career identity that

emphasizes both achievement needs and a strong desire to remain true to personal

definitions of success.” This book represents one of the first contributions towards

developing a richer, more in-depth understanding of the overall mid-career student affairs

experience.

While not solely concentrating on the experiences of mid-career student affairs

professionals, Rosser (2004) examined mid-level administrators in higher education and

possible issues affecting their intention to remain in or leave the profession. Rosser

randomly selected 4,000 mid-level administrators from a population of 11,300 public and

private institutional administrators within five Carnegie classifications. Rosser concluded

that while traditionally regarded as a problem for institutions, turnover can be both a cost

and a benefit to an academic organization. Costs included a less loyal and knowledgeable

labor force, while benefits ranged from a re-examination of current reporting structures,

replacing entry-level with experienced individuals, to reducing salary costs. The

contributing factors to job turnover varied from the quality of work life to issues such as

demographic characteristics, morale, and job satisfaction. More importantly for this

current study, Rosser determined there was not a single factor alone in the mid-level

experience that contributed to the intention to stay or leave.

As the previous paragraphs begin to demonstrate, significant support for this

study originates from the dated and often sporadic research examining the professional

development experiences of mid-career student affairs professionals. The literature in

Chapter Two reveals an almost 25-year spread of research on this topic with published

findings occurring approximately every five to six years. Between these years there has

14

been no major research published specifically addressing the professional experiences of

mid-career professionals and how the challenges and supports they face at mid-career

affects the field. Of the studies that do exist, most are quantitative in nature with very

little published of qualitative design with interviews of individuals at mid-career. This is

problematic because the existing qualitative studies provide only small glimpses into the

issues facing mid-career student affairs professionals. Unlike quantitative studies,

qualitative studies allow the researcher to provide a rich, thick description of an

experience. Additionally, within the mid-career experience, the inconsistent and often

confusing experiences defining mid-career professionals creates additional challenges for

understanding this important segment.

Defining Mid-Career

The lack of a coherent, accepted definition of who is considered a mid-career

professional further complicates this research but also strengthens the need for this study.

Some studies have used strictly age-related parameters to define mid-career in student

affairs including age ranges or number of years in service to the profession (Arnold,

1982; Bender, 1980; Bossert, 1982). Other research has used positional descriptors to

identify sample participants, such as a position title, while other studies have used actual

position responsibilities and reporting structure to identify participants (Fey & Carpenter,

1996; Gordon, Strode-Border, & Mann, 1993). Research on new professionals clearly

identifies them as within three years of beginning their careers; research on senior-level

professionals is usually defined by positions and titles (e.g., vice-president, dean).

Mid-career professionals are not vice-presidents or deans (senior-level) and have

been in the field longer then three years (new professionals), so what categories or

15

parameters define them? The absence of a consistent definition for mid-career among the

sparsely published studies creates a strong need for a study focusing on individuals who

have entered the mid-career period of their profession and what those career parameters

look like. Specifically, this study examined and detailed the experiences of individuals on

varied career tracks who self-define as mid-career professionals and are currently

working or have recently worked in student affairs. Additionally, it examined issues

affecting the professional development of mid-career professionals and how the

challenges and supports they face at mid-career influenced their professional satisfaction.

For the purpose of the current study, the working definition of a mid-career

student affairs professional was an individual between the ages of 27-55 who has

completed a master’s degree, is currently working in an area of student affairs (e.g.,

residence life, student activities, career education), and with more than three years of

professional experience in the field. Recognizing the breadth across functional areas in

student affairs and non-parity across institutions, the study did not limit its findings by

using a more purposeful definition of mid-career, aiming instead to provide more general

information to serve as a launching point for further research.

As one of the research questions indicates, a primary focus of this study was to

chronicle the experiences of individuals who self-define as “mid-career professionals” in

student affairs. As this is often a period filled with changes and challenges in their

professional and personal lives (Renn & Hughes, 2004), it was important to provide an

opportunity for the participants in this study to detail their experiences at mid-career. The

rich and complex descriptions I detail in Chapters Four and Five weave a significant

backdrop for the mid-career experience that is missing from the research about this

16

period. It also provides individuals, institutions, and student affairs with a more informed

and inclusive definition of mid-career, and issues surrounding professional development,

satisfaction and attrition. Instead of only using traditional student affairs identifiers such

as position or title, I wanted to relate to the reader the common experience that all of the

participants share: the journey that is mid-career.

An additional focus of the study as supported by the research (Barr, 1990; Fey &

Carpenter, 1996) was to provide assistance to institutions and the profession grappling

with understanding issues related to professional satisfaction and increasing attrition rates

among mid-career professionals (Barr, 1990; Bender, 1980; Evans, 1988; Richmond &

Sherman, 1991), and training future senior administrators in student affairs. In

chronicling the different experiences of individuals and studying what factors, if any,

influence the retention and attrition of mid-career student affairs professionals,

institutions and associations can use this information to assist in addressing the

challenges faced by mid-career professionals. Using identifiers related to position,

responsibilities, and demographic information, my study examined themes drawn from

the literature that potentially influence professional development and satisfaction, and

chronicle the experiences of mid-career professionals. This was accomplished by first

using a survey instrument to inform the research questions, which were then tested and

expanded during the second portion of the study, participant interviews. Both datasets

formed the basis for interpreting data, reporting results, and making recommendations.

As higher education changes, student affairs professionals should understand how

these changes impact their roles on campus. This includes understanding and supporting

the changing needs of professionals working in the field. Since research examining mid-

17

career student affairs professionals is incomplete and this period is often misunderstood

in terms of how individuals experience this period, research similar to what is found in

this study is vital to expanding this knowledge base. The survey data provided a view into

the lives of mid-career student affairs professionals, touching on several general areas of

concern identified in Chapter Two. The interviews allowed me to provide a more detailed

description of the rich experiences of a few individuals and a more thorough

understanding of who these people are and how their personal and professional lives are

influenced by their mid-career status.

In this two-phase, sequential mixed-methods study (Creswell, 2003) I obtained

demographic and quantitative results from a survey instrument sent to mid-career student

affairs professionals, then conducted individual qualitative interviews to garnering more

in-depth data. During the first phase, an on-line survey involving mid-level student affairs

managers who have participated in an institute for mid-career professionals measured

reactions to several areas identified from the literature. In the second phase of the study, I

solicited a purposeful sample of mid-career professionals to participate in qualitative

interviews, which were used to explore significant themes and responses from the survey

and chronicle the experiences of their journey through mid-career.

Significance of the Study

The current study provides insight into the experiences of mid-career student affairs

professionals. Specifically, the purpose of the current study was to chronicle the

experiences of individuals who self-define as mid-career professionals in student affairs,

and examine how the challenges and supports they face at mid-career influence their

professional development, satisfaction and intention to stay in the field. Since current

18

research in the field focuses more on the professional development experiences of new

and senior student affairs professionals (Barr, 1990; Bender, 1980; Harder, 1983; Harned,

& Murphy, 1998; Lunsford, 1984; Richard & Sherman, 1991; Rickard, 1982), increased

research on mid-career student affairs professionals is necessary to increase the

understanding of who they are and how their experiences affect their professional

development, satisfaction and intention to stay in the field. Acknowledging the existing

gap of research on mid-career, in my study I sought to address the incomplete view of the

mid-career professional experience and aid institutions and the field in trying to provide

greater support and understanding during this important career segment. In my study, I

employed a mixed-method research approach in an effort to provide a more deep and rich

understanding of issues facing student affairs professionals moving through mid-career.

The findings from my study ultimately assist the field of student affairs in preparing and

supporting mid-career individuals in the hopes of better understanding this important

career period.

Organization of the Study

To answer the research questions and provide useful and productive information, I

proceeded in the following manner. I introduce Chapter One with an examination of the

current gap in the literature on professional development and experiences of mid-career

student affairs professionals, and I provide more detail on this gap in Chapter Two. In

Chapter Two I briefly examine research from the private sector on professional and

career development and theories from adult learning appropriate to this study. In the bulk

of Chapter Two, I examine existing research on professional and career development

within higher education by first drawing parallels from faculty and administrative

19

professionals to that of student affairs professionals before concentrating on new, mid-

career, and senior student affairs professionals. In the final section of this chapter, I detail

the issues affecting attrition within the student affairs field at all career stages.

In Chapter Three, I describe the study’s methodology giving support for the

choice of a mixed-methods research design. In Chapters Four and Five, I detail the results

of the data analysis examining the experiences of mid-career student professionals, and

the impact of professional development and satisfaction on issues such as retention and

attrition. I include weaving the rich experiences of interview participants throughout both

chapters. Finally, in Chapter Six, I summarize the findings, providing insight into the

experiences of mid-career student affairs professionals and make recommendations for

institutions and professional associations within higher education.

20

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

As stated in Chapter One, there is very little published research on the mid-career

status of student affairs professionals, which is the subject of this particular study.

Therefore, much of the literature cited here is anecdotally based and concentrates

primarily on other areas either within student affairs or closely related. This creates an

incomplete picture of the experiences of affecting mid-career student affairs professionals

and their professional development and satisfaction..

However, there is some relevant published research from other professional career

areas that brings understanding and sheds light on the mid-career status of student affairs

professionals. This chapter will examine that research which comes, primarily, from two

venues: 1) research on mid-career professionals in private industry; how career stage

research, including adult learning and transition, provides context for this particular

study; and 2) research on faculty which concentrates on the mid-career stage of faculty

development. This provides some parallels between research on mid-career faculty and

that of mid-career professionals in student affairs.

This chapter will also concentrate on a discussion of the three career stages in the

student affairs field: new professionals just entering the field, individuals at mid-career,

and senior student affairs officers. Particular emphasis will be put on the past and current

state of research on student affairs professionals at mid-career, particularly on its maturity

as a field of investigation.

21

This review will conclude with a section detailing issues relevant to retention and

attrition of student affairs professionals, the purpose being to provide a contextual link

between the experiences, professional development and satisfaction of mid-career student

affairs professionals and their desire to remain in the field.

Research on Mid-Career Professionals in Private Industry

Research literature found in the professional, private sector, concentrates on such

areas as organizational management, vocational behavior, and employee development

(Bolyard, 1981; Freiberg, Zbikowski, & Ganser, 1997; Holmes & Cartwright, 1994;

Klingner & Nalbandian, 1985; London, 1990; Williams & Fox, 1995). Early research was

based primarily on surveys that studied approaches for motivating employees and the

techniques organizations were using to manage employees (Holmes & Cartwright, 1994;

London, 1990). Later work began postulating strategies for managing different aspects of

employee behavior throughout the career span, such as analyzing experiences at different

career stages and mentoring for newer employees (Freiberg, Zbikowski, & Ganser, 1997;

Williams & Fox, 1995). From these strategies emerged discussions about mid-career

professionals and the different issues affecting their status as employees. The work

focused on individual characteristics, such as psychological and biological maturity, peak

performance, years of professional and personal development, affiliations in professional

organizations and associations, and increased importance of family and lifestyle

(Freiberg, Zbikowski, & Ganser, 1997; Williams & Fox, 1995).

The research on mid-career professional development originating from the private

sector is beyond the scope of this study, however, whose thesis is embedded in that of

higher education, specifically the differences and similarities in faculty, administrators,

22

and student affairs professionals as they work from within the mid-career time-frame.

Individuals face different choices when reaching the mid-career period, and sometimes

those choices involve a transition in their current career. Specifically, I was interested in

understanding the experiences of student affairs individuals who self-define at mid-

career, as well as examining how challenges and supports impact the mid-career, student

affairs professionals professional development and satisfaction in the field. The following

sections explore professional and career development, including transitional issues

regarding faculty, administrators, and student affairs professionals.

One area of study in higher education affecting all three groups suggests that how

individuals deal and learn from transition in their lives can influence how certain

sociocultural and psychological factors influence possible career changes. Research in

adult education examines how learning affects the professional lives of individuals as

they progress through adulthood. These theories provide context for understanding the

possible changes and transitions that often occur at different career stages and how

individuals experience them. Of particular interest to this research is the transition that

occurs during mid-career after having been a new professional in the field.

As individuals face new challenges and choices entering mid-career, it is

important to understand how they learn, either in a traditional educational setting or in a

professional or career situation. Merriam and Caffarella (1991) explore how transitions in

lives are linked to learning in adulthood. The authors suggest that sociocultural factors

affect development in adulthood including career issues “at least as much as

psychological forces” (p. 111). According to these researchers, change in adulthood is

“determined as much by the sociocultural context as by individual maturation” (p. 119).

23

Finally, the authors claim “socialization experiences and social roles are key concepts in

understanding change and its relationship to learning” (p. 119).

A more recent discussion on how learning affects professional lives is derived

from the concept of transformative learning. Studying the professional lives of nine

nonprofit environmental activists, Kovan and Dirkx (2003) cited how emotions,

imagination, and spirituality are actively involved in and central to transformative

learning. The idea of transformative learning draws more on the self-awareness and

consciousness an individual has gained throughout life and how that knowledge can be

applied to a career or a vocation (Kovan & Dirkx, 2003). Grounded in psychology, this

view suggests that transformative learning reflects the thoughtful and lifelong struggle of

an individual to “be who he or she is called to be” (Kovan & Dirkx, p. 102). Linking this

idea to mid-career timeframes, transformative learning suggests that as individuals face

this period during their career, awareness of one’s self could enhance or detract from

decisions about their experience during mid-career.

Research on the Professional and Career Development of Faculty

Research on the professional and career development of faculty has been

developed more fully over the past 25 years than that found in the field of student affairs.

The literature has documented such faculty development issues as job satisfaction,

vitality, and institutional personnel policies. Because many of the same issues affect

student affairs professionals, and both groups account for the largest employee base in

higher education, it is relevant to this study to examine the literature on the professional

and career development of faculty, which provides important parallels to the experiences

24

of mid-career student affairs professionals and highlights similar factors influencing their

retention and attrition.

Research conducted on mid-career faculty focused on such intrinsic issues as job

satisfaction and professional vitality, rather than reflecting on self-awareness and

professional development. Early research by Baldwin and Blackburn (1981, 1990);

Belker (1985), and Caffarella, Armour, Fuhrmann, and Wergin (1989) concentrated on

faculty vitality, professional development programs at the institutional level, career

planning, and personnel policies. Baldwin and Blackburn’s (1981, 1983) research was the

first published that studied faculty vitality.

However, there are also some noticeable differences between faculty and student

affairs professionals. Entry level student affairs professionals tend to begin their careers

immediately after graduate school without much formal training beyond what is learned

during school (Richmond & Sherman, 1990; Wood, Winston, & Polkosnik, 1985),

whereas faculty tend to receive their terminal degrees before entering academia with

some experience in teaching and researching as part of their graduate school preparation.

Notably, the farther student affairs professionals advance in their careers the more

difficult it is to find positions, described by Carpenter et al. (1987) as the “bottleneck” for

senior student affairs officers. Often, traditional faculty career paths advance in regular

intervals toward tenure. However, as the research demonstrates, both professions struggle

with similar developmental issues during their careers. Currently, faculty provide the

most appropriate group of professionals to study within higher education with regard to

proximity to student affairs professionals.

25

Birnbaum (1991) cited the professional culture in higher education (comprised of

faculty and administrators) as serving the “cause of knowledge and understanding, in

intellectual honesty, and in the critical importance of academic freedom” (p. 74).

According to Birnbaum, these ideas help “bind together the academic professions” (p. 74)

across different disciplines and institutions. In comparing the career development of

faculty with that of administrators, Birnbaum suggested that typical organizational

theories are not always comparable to professionals in higher education. He contended

that the “organizational characteristics” of academic institutions are different enough

from other types of institutions that comparisons of traditional “theories cannot be

applied to educational institutions without carefully considering whether they will work

well in that unique academic setting” (p. 28). These issues invite equitable comparisons

between the professional and career development of faculty and student affairs

professionals.

In the early 1980s, Baldwin and Blackburn (1981, 1983) began publishing work

on faculty vitality and various conditions affecting the professional lives of faculty. This

work contributed to Baldwin’s future work on mid-career faculty and factors affecting

job performance at different institutions (Baldwin, 1990). Baldwin and Blackburn (1983)

studied national and state data published and distributed annually in higher education,

and Baldwin used national data, surveys, and some personal interviews at different

institutions (Baldwin, 1990). Baldwin (1979) also used an adult and career development

model in studying the implications for faculty development, as well as one of the same

adult development theories cited in the research by Cytrynbaum, Lee and Wadner (1982)

to study faculty development, namely, Levinson’s theory of stability and transition

26

throughout the life course. Using Levinson’s late settling down (36-40) and mid-life

transition (40-50) stages, Baldwin aligned these with the associate and full professor

stages (1979). As described by Baldwin, the associate and full professor stages are

marked by characteristics of life and career reassessment and dealing with the disparities

between achievements and goals (1979). To study these characteristics, he interviewed a

sample of professors and found that the mid-life stage for faculty (associate or newly

appointed full professor) was marked by assessing one’s life situation and possibly

revising their goals in hopes of achieving more satisfaction (1979). Like Cytrynbaum et

al (1982), Baldwin called on universities to adopt policies and practices that were

“flexible enough to accommodate the different vocational situations of professors at all

career stages” (1979, p. 18).

The early work by Baldwin and Blackburn (1981) also focused primarily on

quantitative techniques (survey data) with some qualitative data as well to examine

economic factors and demographic variables. They interviewed 106 male college faculty

members and categorized them into five career stages indicated by years of experience.

They divided their findings into four categories: (1) stable faculty characteristics; (2)

evolving faculty characteristics; (3) fluctuating faculty characteristics; and (4) critical

events in the academic career (1981). As described by Baldwin and Blackburn (1981),

the faculty members they interviewed described the time in their career when new or

added responsibilities were assumed as “difficult” (p. 604). Additionally, the same

faculty groups stated they most often considered career changes during the “nebulous

mid-career period” (p. 606). Baldwin and Blackburn (1981) reported the two groups of

faculty who considered career change most often were assistant professors with three

27

years of experience to full professors with more then five years before retirement (1981).

Faculty in these same groups cited more often feeling their careers were at a “standstill”

(Baldwin & Blackburn, 1981, p. 606). Finally, the authors called for further research on

faculty vitality, career objectives, career satisfaction, and stress, but did not say how this

was best accomplished.

By the mid to late 1980s more research focused on institutional practices and

policies that affect faculty vitality, with a concentration on mid-career faculty (Baldwin,

1990; Caffarella et al., 1989). These efforts were based more on ongoing discussions

about faculty than actual research studies. One exception was Belker’s 1985 study of

mid-career faculty and professional development programs, in which he identified 25

institutions with existing faculty professional development programs and to which he sent

each institution a survey instrument to gain further information about their programs.

Baldwin (1990) followed up this study on faculty vitality at research universities

with a study of faculty at four selective private liberal arts institutions in the southeast. In

this study, Baldwin continued to explore the link between vitality and career development

in faculty and attempted to explore the distinguishing factors separating “vital” professors

from those who plateau or in some way “reduce their professional momentum.” Although

Baldwin (1990) did not specifically define what constitutes a “vital” professor for this

research, he did use only faculty considered “star performers” on their campuses by other

administrators and faculty.

Using descriptors such as scholarship, teaching, and engagement to identify “star

performers in areas that his or her institution most prizes” (Baldwin, 1990, p. 163), 50

“vital” faculty were interviewed, along with 40 other faculty. Baldwin used these

28

findings to advocate for changes in policy and practice by colleges and universities to

increase their numbers of vital faculty. Although Baldwin’s research pointed to faculty

development throughout their careers, his recommendations are highly concentrated

during the mid-career stage. These recommendations included flexible academic

personnel policies, fostering diversified academic careers, facilitating collaboration and

risk-taking among faculty, and encouraging periodic career planning. Baldwin also

called for future research to study the specific effects of mid-career on faculty vitality.

Karpiak conducted a study in 1996 on mid-career faculty and mid-life at a

Canadian research university with a sample of 20 faculty members (15 men and five

women) who held the rank of associate professor. Karpiak cited her use of a qualitative

approach (interviews) for this study as it would permit an “insider” individual view. Her

most notable findings were the need for “relationship, communion, and community; the

sense among faculty that they do not matter to the university; and the importance of the

investment they put into the tasks of care and generation” (Karpiak, p. 65).

Concentrating on all faculty, Cytrynbaum et al. (1982) expanded research on

faculty development by using a lifespan model incorporating an adult development

approach. Cytrynbaum et al. (1982) defined midlife faculty as men and women in their

late 30s to mid or late 50s who were confronting midlife tasks. The researchers cited the

“intellectually fallow” period faced by midlife faculty in their professional lives creating

slowed research, uninspired teaching, and inadequate mentoring functions. Ultimately,

Cytrynbaum et al. (1982) concluded that this period created minimal excitement among

midlife faculty for the scholarly work of their professional past. To counteract these

issues the authors called for universities to openly recognize the midlife struggles of

29

faculty and to create support systems to counter these effects. Examples of these systems

include: open and confidential support systems for individual counseling, flexible

sabbatical leaves, and a reduction in responsibilities to explore career shifts.

The finding indicated that as faculty develop professionally several factors affect

how they remain engaged, active, and connected to their fields and institutions.

Individual research cited keeping faculty vital by providing support during periods of

uncertainty and change, and encouraging career exploration (Baldwin, 1979, 1990).

Collectively, the research called for institutional policies and procedures to support the

professional and personal development of faculty, especially during mid-career (Baldwin

& Blackburn, 1981, 1983; Karpiak, 1996). Flexible work schedules and sabbatical leaves,

and encouragement to work outside their fields of study were also examples of support

cited in the literature (Baldwin, 1979; Caffarella et al., 1989; Cytrynbaum et al., 1982).

Despite the concentration of research on faculty development, there remain some

gaps in understanding how professional and personal issues affect the development of

mid-career faculty. The rapid changes in the professoriate over the past decade warrant

new research on the experiences of part-time and adjunct faculty. The aging professoriate

and more recent budget cuts create a need to understand the experiences of mid-career

faculty as they become the backbone of teaching at most universities.

In addition to faculty, the other group which provides the core of professionals in

higher education is that of mid-level administrators. Since the 1980s, administrators have

become one of the largest areas of personnel growth in higher education (Rosser, 2004).

Among administrative groups, midlevel professionals comprise a significant bulk of

those individuals and work in areas like business affairs, student services, and academic

30

support services (Rosser, 2004). Researchers began studying administrators and their

professional and career experiences in the early 1980s, focusing on their job satisfaction

and morale. Since this group of administrators includes many mid-career student affairs

professionals, the following section discusses the research on administrators in higher

education with an emphasis on mid-level professionals.

Research on University Administrators

Some of the first work to study administrators in higher education, although

originally not limited entirely to mid-level or student affairs professionals, was done by

Austin (1984, 1985). In the early 1980s, she identified the functional importance of the

mid-level administrator in colleges and universities (1984, 1985). Austin (1984) cited

five areas that affect the work experience of middle administrators including: (1) extrinsic

aspects (salary), (2) intrinsic aspects (professional acceptance), (3) power (creating

institutional policy), (4) relationship of organization (autonomy, perceived value), and (5)

personal outcomes (evaluation criteria). To enhance the work experience of

administrators, Austin (1984) called for higher education to assert its sense of purpose,

use collaborative approaches, improve opportunities for professional growth, and

increase knowledge of administrators’ worklife. Austin (1985) focused her work on mid-

level administrators in which she discussed their job satisfaction.

Surveying 260 mid-level administrators at a large public research university,

Austin (1985) examined several sets of variables for possible correlations to job

satisfaction. The variables were separated into four categories including: (1) personal

characteristics (e.g., sex, age); (2) perceived job characteristics (e.g., autonomy, skill

variety); (3) perceived environmental characteristics (e.g., involvement in decision

31

making); and (4) extrinsic characteristics (e.g., salary level). Overall, Austin (1985)

reported the participants indicated a high job satisfaction. Older participants tended to be

more satisfied in their jobs. Austin (1985) argued that older participants were “more

realistic and less idealistic in their expectations of their work than their younger

colleagues” (p. 17). Through the survey and follow-up interviews, Austin (1985) reported

that participants emphasized the importance of autonomy when they evaluated their

satisfaction with their work. This finding led Austin (1985) to conclude that, “greater

autonomy relates to increased levels of general satisfaction” (p. 23) for mid-level

administrators. She also argued that senior administrators should strive to express

“recognition and appreciation” (p. 23) for the work of mid-level administrators and that

salary was important to mid-level administrators. Because Austin’s (1985) study was

conducted at one institution, she acknowledged the limitations of her results. Fifteen

years later, Volkwein and Parmley (2000) completed a much larger study covering

almost half of the public and private Carnegie research and doctoral institutions in the

United States.

Volkwein and Parmley’s (2000) comparative study from the late 1990s examined

the satisfaction of almost 1,200 administrators at 120 public and private Carnegie

research and doctoral universities. The researchers assumed a connection between

“institutional autonomy, positive administrative work environments, and administrative

satisfaction” (p. 96). One major finding from their study indicated no statistically

significant difference between administrators at public and private universities in global

satisfaction, satisfaction with intrinsic rewards, satisfaction with working conditions, and

satisfaction with people with whom they came into contact. Additionally, the researchers

32

found the connection between institutional autonomy and the autonomy of the individual

administrator in the work setting as “quite weak” (p. 113).

Started in 2000 by Rosser, Johnsrud, and Heck, and expanded in 2004 by Rosser,

the researchers conducted a national study of mid-level leaders in higher education and

their intent to leave their jobs. The researchers made a distinction between satisfaction in

the work setting and morale (Johnsrud, Heck, & Rosser, 2000; Rosser, 2004). Focusing

on morale instead of satisfaction, Johnsrud and Rosser (1997) found morale (high or low)

was more related to administrators’ intent to leave their positions. Johnsrud et al. (2000)

piloted a survey with 1,293 mid-level administrators within a 10 campus university

system. Using earlier work from Johnsrud (1999), the study identified three sources of

frustration in the worklife experience of mid-level administrators: (1) the nature of their

role, (2) the lack of recognition for their contribution, and (3) their limited opportunity for

career growth or advancement (Johnsrud et al., 2000). These researchers suggested

“turnover decisions may reflect the perceptions held by employees regarding their current

work situation as well as their opportunity for future advancement” (p. 5). The

researchers found at the individual level, administrators’ perceptions of worklife had a

“direct and powerful effect on their morale and a small indirect effect on their intent to

leave or stay in their positions” (p. 12). Finally, the results of the study suggested if

institutions want to reduce turnover and retain employees, it is “important to examine

administrators’ perceptions of worklife conditions and the consequent impact on their

morale” (p. 14).

In the 2004 continuation of the study from 2000, Rosser measured some of the

same characteristics of mid-level administrators’ intention to leave, such as worklife,

33

satisfaction, and morale. Rosser (2004) randomly selected 4,000 mid-level administrators

from a population of 11,300 public and private institutional administrators within five

Carnegie classifications. She concluded that while sometimes a problem for institutions,

turnover created both costs and benefits for an academic organization (Rosser, 2004).

Costs included a less loyal and knowledgeable labor force as well as such benefits as a

reexamination of current reporting structures and replacing experienced with entry-level

individuals to reduce salary costs. A few other key findings from the study included: (1)

being an ethnic minority mid-level leader had a significant and negative impact on

overall morale but not on satisfaction or intent to leave; (2) mid-level leaders who were

paid higher salaries had a lower level of morale; (3) working conditions had no impact on

mid-level leaders’ morale, satisfaction, or their intention to stay or leave their position or

career; (4) the higher the mid-level leaders’ satisfaction, the less likelihood of them

leaving; and (5) if satisfaction is high and morale is low, mid-level leaders would be more

likely to leave. Finally, Rosser determined that it was the combination of “demographic

characteristics, worklife issues, morale, and satisfaction that determines their intentions to

stay or leave” (Rosser, 2004, p. 334).

While not specifically focusing on student affairs professionals, the previous

research on mid-level administrators provides a close proximity to the worklife and status

of student affairs professionals. In the mid-1980s, Austin (1985) was one of the first

researchers to study worklife issues of mid-level administrators in higher education

focusing on issues of job satisfaction. Ten years later, Volkwein & Parmley (2000) also

studied job satisfaction issues of mid-level administrators but expanded their sample to

include 120 institutions, finding no difference in the responses of participants at either

34

public or private schools. Finally, in 2000 and 2004, Johnsrud, Heck, and Rosser began

studying the intent of mid-level administrators to leave their positions by focusing on

morale instead of job satisfaction. The researchers suggested if institutions want to

address turnover of mid-level administrators, they should begin looking at worklife issues

and how it affects professional morale (Johnsrud, Heck, & Rosser, 2000). Four years

later, Rosser (2004) conducted a larger sample of mid-level administrators and concluded

that a combination of different factors influenced the actual decisions of individuals to

stay or leave. These studies, particularly the most recent two, began to explore issues

related directly to mid-level or mid-career professionals who are also working in a

functional area of student affairs.

Research on Student Affairs Professionals

As student affairs grew into a more professional field and expanded its scope on

college and university campuses, the need to understand how individuals in the field

develop professionally also increased. In the early 1980s, burnout, attrition, and career

development became hot topics in the field. Like their faculty counterparts, research

involving student affairs was conducted by practitioners in the field. However, these early

researchers focused on qualitative techniques over small areas within the field. Also

during this time, the research began to segregate into three distinct stages of career

development: new, mid-career, and senior professionals. The research began to build on

the experiences of entry-level and senior professionals, but lacked studying the mid-

career time-frame. The following sections are a review of professional development

research from these three areas.

35

New Student Affairs Professionals

A study of student affairs attrition suggested that a high attrition rate, ranging

from 39% to 68% (Burns, 1982; Holmes, Verrier, & Chisolm, 1983; Wood, Winston, &

Polkosnik, 1985) was related to the incongruence between young professionals and their

work environments (Hancock, 1988). Hancock sampled graduate students with primary

responsibilities in a residential housing office and supervisors of entry level housing

positions who “assessed occupational reinforcers available in positions under their

supervision” (p. 26). Hancock found the needs rated as most important in an ideal job by

graduate students were ability utilization, achievement, creativity, and responsibility.

Needs rated as unimportant included authority and independence. Hancock suggested

addressing student needs by fostering “student self-awareness and providing a

comprehensive, realistic orientation to the student affair’s world of work” (p. 29). He

advocated that graduate preparation programs should provide introductory coursework

focused on self-exploration and the fit of a student affairs graduate degree into a student’s

individual career path. Finally, Hancock cited the work environment as an area for further

research affecting graduate student and young professional attrition (1988).

Wood, Winston, and Polkosnik (1985) cited a growing concern over the attrition

of young student affairs professionals as reason to study professional development in that

field. The authors used the concepts of career anchors and orientations to frame their

study of graduating master’s students in 1978 from four nationally known student

personnel preparation programs. Using DeLong’s Career Orientations Inventory (COI)

and Carpenter’s Student Affairs Professional Development Inventory (SAPDI), Wood

and colleagues split the participants into two groups: (1) individuals still employed in

36

student affairs, and (2) those no longer in the field. The authors found an individual’s

career orientations were related significantly to the level of professional development in

student affairs, and they tended to remain in the field longer as their years of experience

in higher education increased. Individuals who remained in student affairs also indicated

less importance in geographical security. Those who left student affairs expressed an

increased need for autonomy. These researchers examined only the relationships between

career anchors and professional development and their implications for young

professionals in student affairs. They called for further study to include other variables

such as the “low ratio of mid-level administrative positions to entry-level positions”

(p. 538).

Building on the research of Wood, Winston, and Polkosnik (1985), Richmond and

Sherman (1991) focused on career choices, satisfaction, and preparation programs of

graduate students and new professionals in student affairs. Their study focused on

understanding the types of individuals who have a better chance of succeeding in student

affairs (Richmond & Sherman, 1991). They found although most individuals were

satisfied with their graduate programs, students were still not adequately prepared for

changing career options in student affairs (1991). Additionally, Richmond and Sherman

(1991) believed the high attrition rate from student affairs could be linked to the new

professional’s “collision with chaotic surroundings and unfulfilling supervisory

relationships” (p. 16). They found that individuals in the study who had received

increased career knowledge, experience, and awareness of career options while in their

graduate programs expressed higher rates of satisfaction in their first positions (1991).

37

Using knowledge and measurement techniques found in role stress literature to

student affairs professionals, Ward (1995) studied the problem of attrition among new

professionals. Sampling 158 new professionals employed full-time at 4-year colleges and

universities, Ward (1995) studied relationships between role stress and the areas of

employment, graduate program, autonomy, organizational formalization, job satisfaction,

and propensity to leave. He found no evidence to support the relationships between

graduate training, functional area, work place formalization, propensity to leave, and role

conflict. Additionally, Ward (1995) found no relationship between graduate training and

functional area with role stress. However, role ambiguity was found to be a stronger

predictor of job satisfaction and propensity to leave, stronger than role conflict, career

mobility, work place formalization, task overload, or dissonance between student

development philosophies (Ward, 1995). Three years later, new research (Harned &

Murphy, 1998) on new professionals leaving the profession seemed to bolster Ward’s

argument of role ambiguity and propensity to leave.

Harned and Murphy (1998) identified four elements involved in the development

of new professionals: the supervisor, the new professional, the institutional leadership,

and the student affairs leadership. The concerns associated with supervisors, institutional

leaders, and leadership in student affairs could determine whether young experienced

student affairs professionals leave the profession (Harned & Murphy, 1998). To combat

this, they advocated strengthening the relationships of student affairs and institutions to

new professionals and supervisors. Building “esteem and competence” (p. 5) among new

professionals helps ensure the future of the profession. Building on the idea of developing

relationships, Roper (2002) cited the importance of overcoming ineffective social skills

38

of young and mid-level professionals. He challenged his fellow student affairs

professionals to develop an approach that places relationships with others at the “center

of both our personal and professional lives” (p. 11).

New professionals become the mid-career and senior professionals in the field.

Relevant research on the career and professional development of new professionals

exists, assisting practitioners and institutions in supporting and maintaining their student

affairs professionals. Even before new professionals accept their first position after

graduate school, professional and career orientations are important issues for student

affairs graduate programs to prepare individuals for the field. Issues associated with their

first professional position such as autonomy and supportive supervisors become key

determinants in new professionals remaining in the field after their first years. As new

professionals mature and move into mid-level positions within student affairs, keeping

them supported, vital, and engaged ensures a continued dedicated workforce as the career

ladder narrows at the mid-level and senior student affairs levels.

Mid-Career Student Affairs Professionals

In supporting new professionals as they transition into mid-level and senior level

student affairs professions, it becomes increasingly difficult to understand when those

individuals move into mid-career. Compounded by the lack of research on the

experiences of mid-career student affairs professionals is the lack of a clear target

population to study. Two studies in the mid-1990s attempted to give form to the

definition of mid-career student affairs professionals. Gordon, Strode-Border, and Mann

(1993) studied competencies that top-level student affairs administrators seek when

hiring for mid-level positions. For their research they identified a mid-manager as an

39

individual who reports directly to the chief student affairs officer (CSAO), or to a person

who reports directly to the CSAO, and is responsible for the “direction, control, or

supervision” (p. 290) of one or more student affairs functions or professional staff. The

study authors did not identify why they used that particular set of parameters for the

sample. Similarly, Fey and Carpenter (1996) used a participant sample which consisted of

a) an individual who occupied a position that reported directly to the chief student affairs

administrator (CSAA) or who occupied a position one level removed from the CSAA,

and b) was responsible for the direction or control of one or more student affairs

functions, or supervision of one or more professional staff members. Again, there was no

mention of why they used that particular set of parameters to select individuals for their

study.

At a 1990 student affairs conference, eight papers on mid-level managers in

student affairs were presented. The papers cited assimilation of the mid-level student

affairs professional’s needs within other aspects of career research as a reason for the

discussion (Young, 1990). In particular, Carpenter (1990) argued that human

development principles can be applied to professional development in student affairs and

proposed a model of four career stages: formative, application, additive, and generative.

Carpenter (1990) used his model to structure a series of professional development

activities for mid-managers in student affairs based on the “author’s research, personal

experience, and observations of student affairs professionals” (p. 93). He cited his own

doctoral dissertation from 1980 about the professional development of student affairs

workers as the foundation for much of what he had written in this paper. Carpenter

followed up his work a few years later when he and Fey (1996) studied mid-level student

40

affairs mangers in Texas. Four years earlier, Komives (1992) used Carpenter’s (1990)

career stages to frame her discussion of mid-career student affairs professionals.

Using Carpenter’s (1990) four career stages, Komives (1992) suggested that

“middlescence” for student affairs professionals brings new “dilemmas and

opportunities” (p. 84) in their careers. Komives (1992) suggested strategies to assist

individuals during this time, such as: being mentored and mentoring new professionals,

creating new programs and strategies, writing for professional publications, and

encouraging other professionals to serve as mentors. Contrary to research from Wood,

Winston, and Polkosnik (1985) on student affairs professionals, Komives (1992)

suggested autonomy is sometimes “antithetical” (p. 87) to professional practice. She

argued being “too autonomous can be viewed as a negative behavior” (p. 87). Komives

(1992) called for middle and top student affairs professionals to “redirect their energies to

developing talent in younger staff” (p. 89). Doing this she claimed will “result in the

continued professionalization of both individuals and the larger field of student affairs”

(p. 89).

Fey and Carpenter (1996) surveyed 177 mid-level student affairs professionals in

Texas. Researching the professional skills of the participants, the authors studied the

importance of various skills and the need for further development of professional skills

(Fey & Carpenter, 1996). They also discovered current favored methods for developing

those same skills and interpreted the effects of setting and demographics on professional

development. The average mid-level administrator from their sample was a 41-year-old

female who held a master’s degree and had been in the profession for over seven years.

Of the skills listed in the survey, respondents chose personnel management, leadership,

41

and communication as most important. Fey and Carpenter (1996) concluded that for mid-

level student affairs administrators to remain viable and marketable for promotion into

higher mid-level or executive-level positions, they must increase their effectiveness by

pursuing the skills listed in their research and continuing to pursue professional

development.

Benke and Disque (1990) studied the mobility of mid-managers in student affairs

and determined the research available in general on student affairs career mobility to be

“sketchy” (p. 14) and even “scarcer still” (p. 14) for mid-managers. The authors urged

researchers to resist the temptation to turn to research in business and industry to help fill

in the gaps. Instead they offered examples of the organizational structure, employment

patterns, and mobility patterns among mid-managers in higher education as reasons for

finding differences in research from the business sector. Among other factors, the authors

viewed attrition as another form of career mobility for mid-managers in student affairs.

They also cited the lack of research focused on mid-mangers in previous studies in

student affairs attrition as an overall concern for the profession. Benke and Disque

concluded that more research was needed on the issue of career mobility to address

questions of mid-manager mobility and advancement. They also argued for more research

to understand what qualifications are needed for new professionals to advance to mid-

managers within institutions because. Without this knowledge, new professionals are

more at risk of limiting their career mobility and possibly increasing attrition rates in the

field.

Finally, in 2004, one of the first attempts at capturing the rich stories of mid-

career student affairs professionals was published. In Roads Taken, Renn and Hughes

42

(2004) compiled stories of women in student affairs who are currently in or have moved

beyond mid-career. Started as a panel discussion in 2002 at a National Association of

Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), a group of mid-career student affairs

women began discussing issues involving their personal and professional lives. From that

panel discussion grew a collection of stories about different issues affecting mid-career

women in student affairs. Those issues include pursuing the doctorate, motherhood and

student affairs, dual career couples, the journey through mid-career, and alternative career

paths for student affairs professionals. The five sections are written with a discussion of

how each particular life issue impacts individuals at mid-career in student affairs.

Mid-career professionals and pursuing a doctorate. In introducing this section of

Roads Taken, Howard-Hamilton (2004) suggests the struggle for women over pondering

the question of “To Ph.D. or not to Ph.D.?” (p. 9) at mid-career is made much more

difficult because of other personal, financial, and professional issues to consider. This

question impacts women of all races but becomes even more important for women of

color because of their small representation in the ranks of Ph.D.s in higher education.

Howard-Hamilton concluded with several recommendations for institutions attempting to

address the number of women pursing Ph.D.s. All of her recommendations could directly

or indirectly impact the retention of women within student affairs including mid-career

individuals.

Dual-career couples. As Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, and Rice (2004) point out, in

the year 2000, 37% of all married couples were dual-earners. They cited private

employment sectors in business as being more responsive to this issue than higher

education. Traditional approaches in higher education to assist dual-career couples have

43

been to either offer relocation services or hire the partner into a position at the same

institution as their spouse. The authors studied relocation programs in higher education

citing the relative newness of these kinds of programs without much formal evaluation to

measure their success. Finally, the authors called for academic institutions to

“acknowledge the growing number of couples vying for positions and for more

institutions, especially those in isolated regions, remaining competitive for the best hires

is likely to require some type of institutional response” (p. 62). This situation is

compounded if both individuals are also positioned at mid-career facing a much narrower

career ladder (Carpenter et al., 1987). Dual-career couples navigating the career ladder in

higher education face additional challenges when starting a family. Often the burden

continues to fall onto the mother even after re-entering the workforce.

Motherhood and student affairs. Marshall (2004) cited how little research exists

that examines the complexity of how women manage a career in higher education and a

family, especially in student affairs. While research exists examining women faculty with

children, there is little known about women who are administrators and are also mothers

(Marshall, 2004). This lack of research and the mixed messages women in higher

education receive about having children creates a climate of difficult decisions for

women in student affairs considering starting a family. Marshall (2004) concluded her

section with several recommendations for higher education to address this issue. Of those

recommendations, she cited examining “how professionals are socialized to think about

their priorities both at work and at home” (p. 98). Specifically in student affairs, she cited

her own experience of knowing “many talented women who have left student affairs

because they felt it incompatible with their personal and familial needs.” (p. 98).

44

“I’ve arrived.” Using the work of Judith Bardwick, Hughes (2004) believed a

very large group of talented professionals will be “at their best” (p. 135) between 35 and

45 years old but the number of upper and senior-level positions within corporations,

nonprofits, and educational institutions may not adequately exist for these professionals.

Because so many individuals believe “arriving” (p. 135) means reaching these upper and

senior-level positions, Hughes advocated broadening the definition of “arriving” (p. 135)

in terms of career development. Additionally, within student affairs, mid-career is the

time when many individuals examine their situations to determine the benefits and

liabilities of trying to reach the next level or remaining in middle management. Hughes

suggested that it benefits all individuals working in student affairs, especially at mid-

career or mid-level, to determine what job characteristics are likely to provide the most

stimulation for professionals of the next generation.

Alternate routes. Renn (2004) cited the more traditional career track for the

majority of mid-career student affairs professionals: a master’s degree, entry-level

position, progressively more advanced positions leading to directorship of a functional

area, and a move into deanship or vice-presidency. However, a growing number of mid-

career student affairs professionals are breaking away from this track and exploring

alternative careers or continuing their careers in alternative ways (Renn, 2004). Renn

suggested that research points to lower levels of job satisfaction at mid-career for student

affairs professionals, especially women. To combat issues of job satisfaction, Renn

suggested finding alternative paths within the academy including using the skills acquired

as student affairs professionals to use other areas such as institutional advancement,

government relations, facilities management, and training and development. Outside of

45

higher education, opportunities exist in the K-12 system, nonprofit agencies, and

scholarly associations. Renn concluded that individuals at mid-career in student affairs

who leave the field should follow the lead of their senior student affairs officers and

colleagues in considering an “exit strategy” (p. 179).

While all the past sections from the Road Taken text concentrate on the

experiences of mid-career women in student affairs, they provide some parallel

information on the experiences of all mid-career student affairs professionals. Certainly,

the issues of whether to pursue a doctorate or gaining a sense that one has arrived are

relevant to any mid-career student affairs professional regardless of gender, race, or

institution type. Issues surrounding alternative career paths for student affairs

professionals are important especially for individuals at mid-career as problems of job

satisfaction and attrition are compounded during this timeframe. Unlike their new and

senior student affairs colleagues whose experiences are documented with more frequency

within the research, the stories of the women in this text provided one of the first in-depth

discussions of the current challenges and successes experienced by mid-career student

affairs professionals.

Senior Student Affairs Officers

Traditionally, as student affairs professionals have moved into later parts of their

career they reach a position in their careers where some begin to consider becoming a

senior student affairs officer (SSAO). Also referred to as the chief student personnel

administrator (CSPA) or chief student affairs administrator (CSAA), this position usually

represents the most senior student affairs professional on campus. The SSAO usually

reports to the president of the institution and serves as a key advisor. As the position has

46

become more important at many institutions, the credentials to become a SSAO have also

increased. Many SSAO positions now require multiple years of experience within higher

education, not always within student affairs and a doctorate degree. As the SSAO

position has gained in prominence, researchers began to examine the development of this

position.

In 1983 Harder examined the career patterns of chief student personnel

administrators (CSPA) by surveying 104 members of the Southern Association of

College Student Affairs (SACSA). At that time the mean age for respondents was

between 36-40 years of age with between 6-35 years of experience, and 81% of the

sample having completed graduate work beyond the master’s level (Harder, 1983).

Harder concluded from his study that without major changes in higher education the

number of CSPA positions over the next 20-25 years will become increasingly smaller.

He based this conclusion on several factors derived from his research including:

(a) indications that tenure in the positions of chief administrator is increasing;

(b) chief administrators tend to be under 50 years of age;

(c) nearly half of the administrators reported that at present they plan to stay in

their positions until retirement;

(d) changes in the mandatory retirement age for educational personnel may allow

individuals to stay in their positions longer;

(e) higher education is in a period of economic instability and student enrollment

decline, resulting in reductions in force or consolidation of positions; and

(f) the period of growth in the number of new colleges or campuses that occurred

in the 1950 and 1960s is over. Indications are that the number of colleges or

47

campuses will remain steady or even decline. Therefore, new positions

established in the past will not be available in the future.

Lunsford (1984) identified the relationship between academic training and

experience as a student personnel professional and its effect on the advancement to chief

student affairs officer (CSAO). He surveyed 147 active National Association of Student

Personnel Administrators (NASPA) members who identified themselves as CSAOs at

four-year institutions. Lunsford studied eight areas: academic preparation, areas of

responsibility, academic preparation, professional job experience, factors influencing

advancement, the value of academic preparation, required competencies, and job profile.

According to Lunsford (1984), a clear path to the CSAO position emerged that included

experience in student affairs administration above the functional director’s level. He also

concluded that the general rule “to move up you must move out” (p. 54) generally holds

true in advancement to the position of CSAO (Lunsford, 1984).

Blimling (2002) posed questions to eight Senior Student Affairs Officers (SSAO)

that were addressed in reflections and personal logs over the period of a year. Blimling, a

vice chancellor for student development, offered these observations and isolated some

examples of how these individuals balanced their professional and personal lives. Several

themes emerged from the interviews, specifically, the struggle SSAOs face over whether

to stay in their current position or move to a different position in higher education such as

a college president or begin a faculty appointment. He reported many of the SSAOs he

interviewed advised having an “exit strategy” (p.36) when considering moving on and

out of student affairs. Finally, Blimling noted many of the SSAOs he interviewed

lamented the loss of balance in their lives between their professional and personal lives.

48

Although written from the viewpoint of SSAOs the last two themes seem relevant to

individuals in mid-career including finding balance between professional and personal

lives and having an “exit strategy” when considering moving out of student affairs.

Unfortunately, Blimling only interviewed SSAOs and did not comment on the

applicability of the themes generated from his interviews to other career stages.

Using the annual and aggregate turnover data for two- and four-year public and

private institutions, Rickard (1982) studied the turnover of chief student affairs officers

(CSAO) from 1974-1981. Rickard found a 17% turnover rate in CSAOs during this

period, of which 57% of this rate was from private institutions (four-and two-year) and

43% from public institutions (four-and two-year) (1982). Two important questions

surfaced from Rickard’s research: To what extent was the turnover initiated by the

individual or the organization, and what happened to CSAOs who left their position?

Arnold (1982) looked at the career development of experienced student affairs

professionals. The work was primarily based on her experience as the Director of the

Career and Placement Services at Indiana University and did not draw from any

qualitative or quantitative research. She reported that many mid-career student affairs

professionals could be characterized as “vocationally adjusted.” However, when mid-

career conflict occurred it was centered on two values: commitment and loyalty within

the profession. She also cited external factors facing mid-career professionals such as

relocation difficulties and two-career family concerns. According to Arnold (1982), the

career development of student affairs professionals needs further study with a focus on

mid-career issues because feelings of employment dissatisfaction tend to build for

individuals in their late 30s and early 40s.

49

As burnout, a declining career ladder, continuing education, and increasing

mobility become hallmarks of the senior student affairs officer (SSAO) position in higher

education, the situation is compounded by institutional retrenchment and declining

enrollments, all of which combine to create issues of turnover and attrition in the SSAO

position. As SSAOs mature and retire from the profession, it is important to understand

how these issues continue to influence their professional development. Understanding

these issues will assist institutions and associations in creating supportive career paths for

the mid-career student affairs professionals who will become the future SSAOs.

Attrition in Student Affairs

One of the first studies to examine why individuals leave the field was done by

Burns (1982). She used a survey instrument and “career path matrix” to assess reasons

for career position changes, as well as to obtain an overview of lifestyle characteristics

affecting career decisions. She used two different universities with active graduate

programs in student personnel administration, which yielded a sample size of 182

practitioners (90 males and 92 females). Burns sent surveys to individuals who graduated

within nine years from either institution. Some individuals could be considered mid-

career. Wiggers, Forney, & Wallace-Shutzman (1982) studied factors associated with

burnout for student affairs professionals. Their article was designed as a tool for

practitioners to identify and combat the factors contributing to burnout in student affairs.

Evans (1988) studied the research related to attrition of student affairs

professionals finding a “lack of opportunity for advancement” as the most frequently

mentioned reason for leaving the field. Supporting this reason, Bossert (1982) and Bender

(1980) cited the perceived lack of career advancement opportunities in student affairs for

50

mid-level and individuals under 36 years of age as an important issue affecting attrition.

Evans (1988) advocated redesigned environmental strategies and strategies created for

personal and professional development as a way to overcome the lack of career

advancement. In his conclusions, Evans called for any further research on attrition in

student affairs to include examining when in a person’s career attrition is more likely to

occur.

Tarver, Canada, and Lim (1999) wrote about job satisfaction and locus of control

among college student affairs administrators and academic administrators. They observed

that job satisfaction is an important and much investigated topic, but “most of the

relevant higher education research in this area focuses on faculty members” (p. 97). Their

study used randomly selected student affairs administrators who in turn selected an

academic administrator with an equal responsibility level on their campus. Three

instruments were used in the study: an information sheet (demographic data), Job in

General scale (measured job satisfaction), and the Internal-External Scale (measured

locus of control). The study examined administrators at the director level or higher.

Although this study used more quantitative data and measures then previous research, it

still did not address the issues facing mid-career student affairs practitioners such as job

satisfaction, advancement, or disillusionment.

Are there other reasons why individuals might leave the student affairs field

besides job satisfaction or lack of career advancement? According to Lorden (1998),

individuals also leave the profession because they are pursuing other attractive career

paths outside of student affairs. However, Lorden (1998) cautioned that there is no

definitive research on the experiences of individuals who leave student affairs to

51

determine if their experiences caused them to leave or if they were ready for a new

career. One possible reason Lorden (1998) cited for this lack of knowledge was that most

of the previous research has been focused on quantitative methodologies without

providing meaningful insight into the experiences of individuals who leave the field.

Lorden offered several suggestions for the profession to consider in retaining and

attracting quality individuals including enhancing job satisfaction, increasing professional

preparation through graduate programs, and expanding the definition of professional

development and advancement. However, sometimes these factors have little or no effect

on why individuals choose to leave the student affairs field. Often considerations to leave

the field are based on individual decisions that are not related to professional

development within student affairs.

The idea has been proposed that sometimes individuals who leave the student

affairs field do so because they never intended to remain even after completing a student

affairs graduate program. A few authors have suggested that the skills these individuals

gain while working in student affairs are highly transferable to other professions outside

of higher education (Barr, 1990; Carpenter, Guido-DiBrito, & Kelly, 1987). Carpenter,

Guido-DiBrito and Kelly (1987) reviewed studies of competencies and skills fostered by

student affairs preparation and practice and compared them to indicators of success in

business and management. They concluded that the student affairs profession requires

varied and “excellent management and communication skills, and these valuable talents

are readily transferable to other fields of endeavor” (Carpenter, Guido-DiBrito, & Kelly,

1987) (p. 12). Barr (1990) suggested that student affairs professionals are not “wasting”

their time with a career in student affairs because they “gain good experience for the

52

future whether their future is in the field or not” (p. 63). Finally, Barr (1990) suggested

that the “winnowing out process” (p. 63) often discussed in research of student affairs

attrition may have benefits both for individuals who remain and those who decide to

leave.

In comparing themes from the existing research in student affairs on new, mid-

career, and senior student affairs professionals, several key ideas about professional and

career development surfaced. Throughout the literature from the past three sections, the

importance of the skills needed for student affairs professionals to continue advancing in

their careers was continually highlighted. Additionally, the literature suggested Senior

Student Affairs Officers (SSAO) should assist retention in the field by helping new

professionals remain. Research called for SSAOs to create opportunities for new

professionals to become professionally engaged and active. Mid-level professionals and

SSAOs were also called upon to mentor new professionals as a way to challenge new

professionals and keep them in the field. The literature also cited the continual building

of dissatisfaction within the field as one of the bigger concerns not often addressed by the

profession. Finally, much of the research on all career levels in student affairs called on

practitioners and scholars to advance the understanding of retention and attrition within

student affairs. This is found in every decade of research used during this literature

review, yet there still exists a gap of understanding among all student affairs career

levels, in particular, mid-career professionals.

Conceptual Framework

There are three theoretical frameworks that provide a sufficient base for studying

the experiences, professional development and satisfaction of mid-career student affairs

53

professionals. Person-environment theory and professional development and a career

issues lens theory have been drawn from the literature on student affairs professionals.

The third theory was used to study the development of faculty. All three of the

frameworks have been used to study professional and career development within higher

education as professionals progress through various stages of their careers. Levinson’s

(1978) and Lofquist and Dawis’s (1969) theories were developed outside of higher

education but have been adapted by Baldwin (1979) and Hancock (1988) to create a

theoretical framework for studying individuals working within higher education. The

frameworks also serve as lenses to view data collected from this study and reported in

Chapters 4 and 5.

Adult Development Theory and Its Implications for Faculty

Baldwin has written extensively on the career and professional development of

faculty. Throughout his research he has spent time studying how faculty remain vital in

their careers, how institutions can foster and support the development of faculty, and the

effects of adult and career development on faculty (Baldwin, 1979, 1990; Baldwin &

Blackburn, 1981). In one research study, Baldwin (1979) used Levinson’s theory of adult

development. In Levinson’s model, adulthood is composed of alternating periods of

stability and transition (1978). This is a stage theory in which an individual progresses

through six different stages, each with its own characteristics.

Particular to mid-life and mid-career, Levinson (1978) identified three major tasks

that, in his words, “must be worked on” (p. 191) during the period of transition from

early adulthood to middle adulthood. Generally applied, each of the three tasks have

54

some application to mid-career issues. The first task calls for a man1 to “review his life in

this era” and “reappraise what he has done with it” (p. 191) up to the point of mid-life.

The second task constitutes the time to “modify the negative elements of the present

structure and to test new choices” (p. 191). Finally, in the third task one is to “deal with

the polarities that are sources of deep division in his life” (p. 191). Levinson’s four

polarities form this third task and include: 1) young/old, 2) destruction/creation, 3)

masculine/feminine, and 4) attachment/separateness. There are elements of each task,

particularly the first two, that still resonate with the issues associated with mid-career.

Certainly, taking stock of one’s career at the point of mid-career and considering different

choices are still relevant professional development issues. The four polarities of

Levinson’s (1978) third task are applicable to development at perhaps any stage of a

career, including mid-life.

Baldwin (1979) used Levinson’s (1978) six stages and compared the professional

stages of faculty career development from newly hired assistant professor to shortly

retired full professor. Levinson’s theory also includes specific age separations that

accompany the corresponding characteristics. Baldwin did not restrict himself to very

narrow age-related parameters for this study. He used a range of years to give each career

stage with faculty rank a more concrete timeframe (1979).

Studying Baldwin’s (1979) findings revealed similarities common to all of the

five faculty career stages, such as reviewing one’s professional life and a desire to learn

new skills or traits. These findings might also relate to new research on mid-career

student affairs professionals using Levinson’s (1978) adult development theory. In

1 Because of the period when Levinson wrote about his theory, he only includes discussions about the male gender.

55

contrast, Baldwin (1979) did find differences in some faculty characteristics that he

believed supported the developmental construct that adults do change over time.

Essentially, faculty interests in certain roles wax and wane over time as they progress

through their career. As this result could be considered a natural part of career evolution

it is highly probable this same result would be evident in researching student affairs

professionals at various stages of their professional lives.

The obvious limitation in using Levinson’s adult development theoretical

framework is its reliance on forward-only progress. Most forward-moving stage theories

suffer from a limitation which does not allow for movement back to a prior stage or

skipping past certain stages. Adult development is a complex issue and no individual

develops at the same pace or level as another. This theory was also developed for males

and most likely white heterosexual males. It does not take into consideration the large

increase in female faculty entering the professoriate or the increase in faculty of color,

who may experience this model in a significantly different manner.

Person-Environment Theory

Often there are a variety of reasons someone chooses to follow a specific career

path or vocation. Similarly, there are as many different reasons why individuals decide to

leave their field or profession. In his work on the attrition of young student affairs

professionals, Hancock attributed a high rate to the incongruence existing between young

professionals and their work environments (1988). Holland suggested that the theory of

choice behavior is an expression of personality (1973). Using Holland’s theory of choice

behavior, Hancock attributes congruent interactions between individuals and work

56

environments as beneficial to achieving stable work choices. However, the excessive

incongruence of the person-environment can also lead to high rates of attrition (1988).

Lofquist and Davis’s (1969) theory of work adjustment also addresses the match

of occupational needs and career reinforcers. Individuals seek to achieve correspondence

with their environment, and work is one major environment to which individuals must

adapt. According to Lofquist and Davis, individuals will ultimately leave their

environment (work) if they cannot find or establish correspondence (connection or fit).

Holland (1988) argued an extension of the person-environment correspondence

(connection or fit) is also the length of employment in a particular position. Additionally,

Holland (1988) extended the theory of person-environment fit to the entire profession of

student affairs instead of individual positions. He (1988) proposed new professionals who

were not finding a fit within the field of student affairs (environment) are leaving the

profession at higher rates. He extended the person-environment fit into understanding

what occurs to individuals in student affairs graduate programs.

In student affairs, the graduate program is traditionally the more common

pathway for launching a career in higher education working in the student affairs field

(Hancock, 1988; Richmond & Sherman, 1991; Ward, 1995). The years spent in graduate

education have been identified as an important stage in the development of professional

identity (Carpenter & Miller, 1981). Typically, the coursework during a graduate

program generally focuses on theories and tools in higher education, cognitive

development, and research analysis. The Association of College Personnel

Administrators (ACPA), a professional association for student affairs professionals,

publishes and subscribes to a Statement of Ethical Principles and Standards (ACPA,

57

2006.). Among the different professional principles and standards it subscribes to are

several that guide the program faculty who teach in student affairs graduate programs.

However, noticeably absent from this section is a discussion concerning career

preparation and career exploration during the graduate program.

Hancock (1988) criticized the apparent lack of actual career preparation, career

exploration, or self-awareness in graduate programs to prepare students for the world of

student affairs work. If new professionals are to be successful, how does the graduate

degree program in student affairs fit their individual career path? How does their new

professional environment fit for each individual either in the field of student affairs or in

a specific area?

The limitation in Hancock’s (1988) study has less to do with the theory he used

and more with his research sample and its application to mid-career professionals. He

focused solely on graduating students who were preparing to begin entry-level positions

in the residence life area. This is the largest area within student affairs for new graduates

to enter, which probably created an easier study sample. There is no indication this theory

could not be applied to mid-career individuals within any area of student affairs

regardless of whether or not they are still working in their original area of specialization.

It would appear what matters are that individuals are still employed within the student

affairs field, regardless of area. The theories on which Hancock based his (1988) study

originate from occupational and organizational research. There is no indication these

theories could not be applied to any career stage or any particular professional field.

Since Hancock has already used one area of student affairs with this theory, using it to

cover multiple areas within the field seems quite reasonable.

58

Professional Development and a Career Issues Lens

A final framework is also a stage model that has been developed specifically for

student affairs professionals. Carpenter and Miller used a model for professional

development based on the premise that the field of student affairs constitutes a

professional community (1990). This professional community involves three sets of

commonalities: shared goals and objectives, the existence of formal and informal

sanctions, and attention to socialization and regeneration (Carpenter & Miller, 1990).

According to Carpenter and Miller, this allowed human development principles to be

applied to professional development. This led to the proposition that “professional

development is continuous and cumulative in nature, moves from simpler to more

complex behavior, and can be described via level or stages held in common” (1990).

Carpenter and Miller proposed four stages that supported this proposition (1981 &

1990).

a) Formative Stage: including graduate and/or paraprofessional preparation

b) Application Stage: encompassing beginning and intermediate practice and further

preparation

c) Additive Stage: involving intermediate to upper-level practice and policy-making

responsibility and increase professional sharing

d) Generative Stage: spanning upper-level practice through retirement and attained

by only a select few who influence the entire profession

Based on the model, Carpenter and Miller (1990 & 1981) indicate that mid-

managers (mid-career) are somewhere in the mid to late Application Stage or the early

Additive Stage. The authors believe mid-managers in either the late Application State or

59

early Additive Stage are dealing with the issue of “commitment to the profession and will

usually have made (or be making) a decision as to whether further education or

increasingly responsible experience is the best way to progress” (p. 9). This idea seems

key to issues of professional development and satisfaction facing mid-career individuals

in student affairs.

The framework of this model could be extended to a study of other issues

affecting mid-managers at the late Application Stage or early Additive Stage. Deciding

on either further education or increasingly responsible experience might not be the only

things to consider during this time. It might also be a time of reflecting on one’s career

including issues of job satisfaction, institutional support, professional development,

staying in student affairs and personal commitments as they relate to the student affairs

field.

Carpenter and Miller (1981 & 1990) developed this stage model to address the

professional development and career issues of mid-managers. Its application to study

other issues or factors affecting mid-career professionals is the most consistent of all

three theoretical frameworks proposed. Again, the limitations of stage models have

previously been discussed and the same potential limitations exist in using their theory.

However, each stage is focused on skills and competencies gained as individuals progress

through their career instead of human behavior. Although the authors make reference in

their model to the link in human development theory, their focus on skills and

competencies rather than feelings and occurrences separates it from Baldwin’s theory of

adult development and its implications for faculty.

60

Summary of Literature Review

Before examining factors affecting mid-career student affairs professionals, it was

important to examine issues facing mid-career professionals from a broader sense. This

research, found primarily in the private sector, focused on how individuals were affected

psychologically and biologically. Using this background to begin focusing on higher

education, this research from the private sector differed quite significantly from theories

on adult education which cited the importance of sociocultural factors on professional

development and argued for its study in addition to psychological factors. In general

application, all have some impact on the professional and career development of

individuals within higher education. However, to begin understanding mid-career issues

in higher education, the chapter first examined how these issues affected faculty.

In the literature, some of the first research to study the professional and career

development of faculty used qualitative studies to examine overall faculty satisfaction

and vitality. By the mid to late 1980s, researchers also focused on how institutional

policies were affecting the professional development of faculty. A few researchers also

focused on mid-career faculty, calling for more research on faculty development. During

this time period, the definition of mid-career faculty evolved, attaching either age range

or faculty rank as determinants. As student affairs developed into a professional field, the

research on professional and career development started with parallels to the research on

faculty development.

Early research on student affairs professional and career development focused on

new and senior professionals. Some of the first research in student affairs was based on

issues of attrition and person-environment fit, and examined individuals finishing

61

graduate programs in student affairs or working in their first positions after graduation.

Researchers identified skills and influences affecting the retention of new professionals

and stressed the importance of understanding these issues to create a strong professional

core of mid-level managers within student affairs. In contrast, other literature

concentrated on the career development of senior student affairs officers (SSAO).

Researchers focused on issues affecting SSAOs such as turnover, burnout, the narrowing

career ladder, and attrition. Again, much of the research in the area mentioned the

importance of preparing and training quality mid-level student affairs managers to

succeed the current core of SSAOs.

The research on mid-level or mid-career student affairs professionals has been

limited in the past 25 years. The few exceptions studied the career mobility and skills

sought by SSAOs for mid-level student affairs managers. Research in the late 1980s was

some of the first to propose a career development stage model for mid-career student

affairs professionals based on human development principles. All of the literature cited

how these issues could affect the retention of qualified individuals within the mid-level

student affairs ranks.

The issue of attrition within student affairs has surfaced in all the literature

covering new, mid-level, and senior student affairs professionals. The literature cited

issues of advancement, narrowing career ladders, burnout, career time-frames, and job

satisfaction as some of the main factors affecting attrition within student affairs at all

career levels. Some of the literature paid particular attention to the issues affecting the

retention of individuals at mid-career, most notably lack of career mobility and

advancement as the most important issues influencing attrition. All of the attrition issues

62

cited in the literature were related to human or adult development theories including

identity, fit, and career development. In particular, the three models chosen for this study

were developed for either faculty or student affairs professionals and will serve as the

framework for understanding the themes developed from the research.

In Chapter 3, I discuss the methodology employed for my study including

descriptions of both instruments in this mixed-method study. I also include descriptions

of participants and a restatement of my research questions from Chapter 1. I continue by

examining my data collection methods for each phase of my study including how I

organized and interpreted my data. I complete this chapter with a discussion involving

“goodness” in qualitative research and some possible limitations in my qualitative

sampling.

63

CHAPTER THREE

Introduction

Existing research on student affairs professionals has usually concentrated on only

those issues pertaining to new and senior professionals. There has been little or no focus

on mid-career student affairs professionals, although the literature has addressed

problems occurring among all student affairs professionals, but which especially affect

mid-career professionals, such as turnover, burn-out, and lack of advancement. These

issues have led to discussions in the research on attrition rates occurring primarily during

the mid-career stage. Because mid-career professionals form the core of future senior

student affairs officers’ positions, it is imperative that the profession recognize issues

surrounding mid-career attrition and move to correct them. The purpose of the current

study was to chronicle the experiences of individuals who self-define as mid-career

professionals in student affairs, and examine how the challenges and supports they face at

mid-career influence their professional development, satisfaction and intention to stay in

the field.

In the last 10 years, the student affairs field has begun to address the professional

and career development needs of mid-career professionals. One way has been to include

educational and interest sessions at national conferences aimed at these mid-career

administrators. But more importantly, both the National Association of Student

Personnel Administrators (NASPA) and the American College Personnel Association

(ACPA) have established institutes specifically designed for mid-level managers in

student affairs. Attendance at the institute sponsored by ACPA has intentionally been

limited (usually about 50 participants) to maintain a small learning atmosphere (ACPA

64

website, 2005). Workshops, or sessions, usually run over a four-day period, with senior

student affairs officers from different institutions serving as faculty.

In addition, another institute, specifically designed for mid-level professionals,

was created jointly by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators

(NASPA) and the Southern Association of College Student Affairs (SACSA). This

institute (http://www.naspa.org/communities/rc/page.cfm?rcpageID=133&rcid=3) was

created 15 years ago, is held over six days, requires a nomination from attendees’ senior

student affairs officer, and limits attendance. I selected participants from both institutes

for my study because I wanted to intentionally attract mid-level student affairs managers

who have self-selected themselves as individuals at some point in the mid-career period.

Methodology

This study was designed to chronicle the experiences of mid-career student affairs

professionals as a mixed-methods study using a survey instrument and interviews. In a

mixed-method study, the researcher combines quantitative and qualitative approaches,

methods, and techniques in a single study (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The survey

instrument was an online survey conducted to test themes generated from the existing

literature on mid-career student affairs (as discussed in Chapter Two). All individuals

from the on-line survey had participated in the Mid-Management Institute sponsored by

ACPA (http://www.myacpa.org/pd/mmi/). The responses from the survey not only helped

inform the questions used during participant interviews, but also guided the second part

of the study (a qualitative study) and served as the launching point for more complex and

thorough discussions with interview participants.

65

The detailed exploration of the responses from the qualitative instrument,

participant interviews, provided a more in-depth and rich description of the experiences

from each of the mid-career professionals. Along with the theoretical frameworks

discussed at the end of Chapter Two, there was also an aspect of transformative

(Creswell, 2003) procedure within the research. The theoretical frameworks helped guide

the identification and discussion of themes in the analysis of the qualitative research

where transformative procedures were used. I employed a mixed-method design for my

study, recognizing that for my purposes using both quantitative and qualitative

instruments is necessary to harness the benefits of matching two separate research

methods (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Rocco, Bliss, Gallagher, & Perez-Prado,

2003). Ultimately, using quantitative and qualitative techniques and data in my study

provided “the best understanding of a research problem” (Creswell, 2003 p. 12), which

was how to richly detail and describe the experiences of mid-career professionals in

student affairs.

Participants

All participants in the study had to meet criteria defined by “mid-career student

affairs professionals,” which was that they had to: be between the ages of 30-55, have a

master’s degree, and work in a functional area of student affairs (e.g., residence life,

student activities, career activities, counseling, etc.). Further, the study only included

those individuals who had participated in an existing institute sponsored by the ACPA or

NASPA/SACSA.

Online Survey Participants. Twenty-three individuals responded to the online

survey over a two-month period (March – April, 2006). Nineteen of the 23 respondents

66

completed all 10 questions on the survey instrument, with 13 of the 19 reporting

themselves as female, eight reporting as male, and five describing themselves as persons

of color. The following functional student affairs areas were reported: student life,

residence life, counseling, dean’s office, student conduct, fitness, student leadership, and

student union.

The reported ages of the participants ranged from the youngest at 26 and the

oldest in their 50s. Eighteen reported working at public, 4-year institutions, and five

reported they worked at private, 4-year institutions. The majority (15) of the participants,

who reported working at public institutions, also described these institutions as having

large student populations. For a similar breakdown of survey participant demographics

please see the spreadsheet in the appendix.

Interview Participants. Fifteen individuals, who were identified as mid-career

student affairs professionals as defined above, and who had participated in one of two

mid-managers institutes, were interviewed. I interviewed 15 participants who were all

current practitioners in the field (or were when they participated in the interviews) who

worked in a functional area within student affairs (e.g., residence life, student activities,

career services, etc.). Only three of the interview participants had also taken part in the

on-line survey but since that was an anonymous instrument their identity was not known

prior to the interviews.

By using individuals who had all participated in one of two institutes developed

specifically for mid-career professionals, it was easier to compare and contrast individual

experiences of the participants with a common connection in their mid-career time-frame

67

and their work in student affairs. Individuals with diverse backgrounds and experiences

in and out of student affairs and higher education were purposefully solicited.

Research Questions

Throughout the data collection for this study, four research questions guided its

progress.

1. What are the experiences of individuals who self-define as “mid-career professionals”

in student affairs?


3. What challenges and supports are present for mid-career professionals in institutions

and student affairs professional organizations?

4. How do the challenges and supports affecting mid-career professionals influence their

decision to stay or leave student affairs?

Data Collection Methods

The methods used for this study were an online survey of 23 participants, and

interviews with 15 different individuals conducted over a span of approximately three

months. The interviews were semi-structured in an effort to utilize the prior information

gathered from the online survey in developing themes and threads to discuss with

participants during the actual interviews, which provided more meaning and richness to

the study. The setting for each interview was at the participant’s institution and conducted

via telephone.

The interviews were driven by the responses from the survey and developments in

the professional lives of participants. At the conclusion of the surveys and each interview,

emerging themes and trends in the data were coded into data “chunks” (Rossman &

68

Rallis, 1998, p. 17). Examples of topics around which interview questions were framed

included: (1) career mobility or advancement, (2) career preparation during graduate

programs, (3) career development while in the field. Written summaries were sent to all

interview participants at the conclusion of each interview phase.

First Phase of Study - Online Survey

Prior to the interviews, I conducted an online survey to determine whether themes

found in the literature on mid-career in student affairs resonated with professionals

regardless of their functional areas (e.g., residential life, student life, etc.). The survey did

not classify individuals by age, gender, or ethnicity, but instead used these descriptors

later when reporting the data within chapters four and five to emphasize study findings.

At the beginning of the survey, each participant was given the opportunity to report

individual characteristics as well as indicate their specific functional area in student

affairs. Ultimately, the data trends aided in the development of research questions and

participant interview questions for the qualitative phase of the study. The survey

questions were arranged under four central themes developed from the literature: mid-

career in student affairs, career advancement, graduate education, and attrition (see

survey instrument in appendix B).

I employed a single-stage (Creswell, 2003) sampling procedure using existing

data from an institute sponsored by ACPA. The institute is called the Donna M. Bourassa

Mid-Level Management Institute (MMI) and focuses on issues important to mid-level

and mid-career student affairs professionals. By using the participants from this institute

a random sample was created within the context of the intended population design. Each

institute is limited to 50 participants annually, to ensure a more diverse sample across

69

functional areas (e.g., residence life, student activities, career services, etc.) within

student affairs.

My study sampled four years of participants beginning in 2002-2005 (ACPA did

not hold an institute in 2000 and the participant list for 2001 could not be located because

of a database switch). Using stratification for a single-stage sample from an existing

dataset helped ensure a unique and diverse sample. In early March, ACPA sent out an

invitation to participate in the survey on my behalf via email to their lists of past

participants. A reminder email was sent out to solicit participants one month later in April

also through ACPA. This resulted in the survey being sent to 102 eligible records (current

email addresses), with 21 emails returned because of bad or expired addresses. 23

individuals initially entered the on-line survey site; 19 individuals ultimately completed

the entire instrument and submitted a completed survey for data analysis.

Second Phase of Study - Participant Interviews

One of the purposes of the study was to provide richer data for the student affairs

field in relation to the mid-career experience, interviewing each participant individually

allowed this richness to develop (Creswell, 2003). Integration of the results from the

survey and the interviews occurred during the interpretation portion of the study

(Creswell, 2003). Again, the quantitative data gathered in the survey was used in part to

inform the data gathered in the qualitative phase. Specifically, questions used during the

participant interviews were generated from the survey responses. For the purposes of this

study, no specific theoretical perspective was employed in relation to gender, race, or

location before the interviews were conducted. However, during the analysis of the

70

interview responses, thematic differences among participants were noted in relation to

gender, race, and type of institution.

I recruited interview participants from both MMIs sponsored by either ACPA or

NASPA/SACSA. An email was sent out on my behalf from MMI program administrators

soliciting individual participation in my study on mid-career. I recruited 15 individuals to

participate in the interview phase of my study. Each of the interviews lasted between 45

minutes to one and half hours and 14 of the 15 were conducted over the telephone. The

very first interview I conducted was in person at a professional institute held for

individuals who work in judicial affairs. I transcribed each interview and sent a copy of

the interview via email for member check. Once receiving the return transcript, I began

analyzing the data.

Data Analysis and Interpretation of Interview Phase

The data from the interviews was continually organized, categorized, and coded

as a means of monitoring changes in the professional lives of the study participants. In

support of this process, Merriam (1998) contended that in qualitative research any data

collection and analysis must be a simultaneous process in order for major themes and/or

ideas to emerge. Thus, all taped telephone interviews were transcribed verbatim and sent

to participants for accuracy and integrity. As interviews were transcribed, I began to

dissect themes from the responses formed around key topic areas in my study. In a

sequential approach as described by Creswell (2003), I also used the survey instrument to

obtain themes and test specific areas of inquiry that I explored during the interviews.

Because my study was a mixed-methods study using a survey and interviews, I was able

to construct a “nested model” (2003) where the results of the survey were often found

71

within the interview responses. I also developed subcodes which lead into codes (Miles,

& Huberman, 1994) and eventually thematic interpretation across all of the data.

Descriptions of Interview Participants

Four of the 15 interview participants were male; two described themselves as

persons of color; and the ages ranged from 27 years to 50 years. The participants were

given pseudonyms to help maintain the integrity of the data and create a more open and

free environment for them to respond more candidly to interview questions. For detailed

classification of interview participants including pseudonyms, age, gender, ethnicity,

institution type, functional area, and family situation the reader should refer to the

appendix A.

Bill M.

At the time of the interview he was working as an assistant dean of students in student

affairs at a large, public, four-year institution. He entered a master’s program for college

student personnel directly following receiving his bachelor’s degree. He has worked at

four different institutions including his current one since graduating with his master’s

degree. He also has a doctoral degree in education, which was completed two years ago.

Sarah F.

At the time of the interview she was working as an assistant director in residence life at a

large, public, four-year institution. She has a master’s degree in student affairs and has

worked at four different institutions including her current one since graduating with her

master’s degree.

Janet R.

72

At the time of the interview she was working as a director in campus activities (left

institution in July 2006) at a medium-sized, private, four-year institution. She has a

maters degree in college student personnel and has worked at one institution since

graduating with her master’s degree, which has included five position changes.

Alice N.

At the time of the interview she was working as a coordinator in Greek affairs at a public,

four-year institution. She has master’s degree in student affairs and has worked at four

institutions including her current once since graduating with her master’s degree.

Francis H.

At the time of the interview she was working as an assistant dean at a large, public, four-

year institution. She has a master’s degree in student affairs and has worked at two

institutions including her current one since graduating with her master’s degree (includes

four position changes).

Slade L.

At the time of the interview he was working as an associate director in student activities

at a large, public, four-year institution. He has a master’s degree in student affairs and has

worked at three institutions including his current one since graduating with his master’s

degree. He currently has course work completed towards a doctoral degree and considers

himself all but dissertation (ABD).

Kathy S.

At the time of the interview she was working as an assistant director in student life at a

small, private, four-year institution (she has since left the institution). She has a master’s

degree in student affairs and she worked at one institution in residence life before

73

beginning her master’s program, worked in residence life at the same institution she was

pursing her master’s degree at, and has worked at one other institution since finishing her

master’s degree.

Mary S.

At the time of the interview she was working as a project manager working with

technical and software support within student affairs division at a medium-sized, public,

four-year institution. She has a master’s degree in mathematics and has worked at her

current institution for the past twelve years.

Carrie P.

At the time of the interview she was working as an associate director in a student union at

a large, public, four-year institution. She has a master’s degree in student affairs and has

worked at three institutions including her current one since completing her master’s

degree.

Frank B.

At the time of the interview he was working in student life in a generalist position at a

medium-sized, public, four-year institution. He has a master’s degree in college student

personnel and has worked at two institutions including his current one since completing

his master’s degree.

Nancy J.

At the time of the interview she was working in with assessment in a student life

department at a large, public, four-year institution. She has a master’s degree in student

affairs and has worked at two institutions including her current one since completing her

master’s degree (includes two position changes at one institution).

74

Joyce B.

At the time of the interview she was working as a coordinator in a disability resource

center at a large, public, four-year institution. She is currently working towards a master’s

degree in management and organizational development. She began her career in the

private sector where she spent most of her professional career before entering student

affairs. She has worked at one institution including her current one (includes three

position changes).

Julie S.

At the time of the interview she was working in a counseling center at a large, public,

four-year institution. She has a Doctorate of Psychology and has worked at three

institutions including her current one.

George S.

At the time of the interview he was working as a coordinator in student affairs at a

medium-sized, public, two-year institution. He has a doctoral degree in higher education

and a master’s degree in secondary education. He has worked at one institution including

his current one since completing his doctoral work.

Margaret T.

At the time of the interview she was working as an assistant dean at a small, private, four-

year institution. She has a master’s degree in counseling and has worked at two

institutions including her current one since completing her master’s degree.

“Goodness” in Qualitative Research

The term “goodness” is used in place of more frequently used terms found in

qualitative research such as validity or trustworthiness. For my study, the term

75

“goodness” is used in the same way authors use the terms validity and trustworthiness. I

placed emphasis on the qualitative design because I was interested in learning more about

the experiences of professionals at mid-career through interviews. The interviews

allowed participants to reflect and respond on their professional and personal lives by

answering a series of probing questions and statements. This also permitted me to dissect

the layers that surround the mid-career professional, layers that are often overlooked by

student affairs and institutions when trying to label this time-frame. More then any other

method, interviews allowed me to capture more then the titles, positions, and

responsibilities participants were and instead chronicle their mid-career experience.

Ultimately, it allowed me to put forward some thoughtful and meaningful implications

and recommendations for the individuals and institutions working with mid-career

professionals. Understanding there are also some challenges that arise when using

qualitative methods, in the final section I present research that supports this method of

inquiry for this study. This is introduced as “goodness” in qualitative research.

Understanding the issue of trustworthiness surrounding the use of qualitative

methods to explore phenomenon, I drew upon a term developed by Arminio and Hultgren

(2002) when judging qualitative research. The idea of using goodness to judge qualitative

research requires that certain criteria are used when conducting qualitative research

including illustrating meaning-making processes, linking epistemological and theoretical

foundations to select methodology, and clear data collection and analysis methods

(2002). A final criterion employs all of these conditions to create goodness in qualitative

research; the research should offer a new understanding that leads to improved practice

76

(2002). As suggested by Arminio and Hultgren (2002) the language of goodness creates a

way to “view, rather then to define quality in qualitative research” (p. 447).

Particular to this study involving participant interviews as one method of data

collection, goodness according to Whitt (1991) includes “thick descriptions rich in details

about the setting, its context, and its people” (p. 45). According to Whitt, goodness also

includes “finding and selecting participants who explicate the data and text in ways that

are consistent with the selected methodology” (p. 454) (Arminio & Hultgren, 2002).

Finally, Arminio and Hultgren (2002) cite revealing researcher “biases, perspectives, and

experiences of the phenomena to be studied” (p. 454) as a test for goodness.

Important to the qualitative portion of this study was Arminio and Hultgren’s

(2002) final criterion where goodness in qualitative research strives to create new

understanding leading to improved practice. Due to the lack of current research on the

experiences of mid-career student affairs professionals, I am aimed for data that produced

usable and rich information for use by the profession and institutions. The information

could be in the form of improved professional development, new or changed personnel

practices, and overall support for this important career stage in student affairs. The

importance of qualitative work as suggested by Brown (1998) relates to “providing new

insights useful to members of the profession as professionals” (p. 258). Arminio and

Hultgren (2002) offer a final thought on qualitative research adhering to the elements of

goodness. The authors believe goodness “requires researchers offer recommendations for

how practice can be transformed due to the insights gained from the study” (p. 458)

(2002). For me this will be the focus from data collected during this study.

77

For the purpose of my study, I used the data to detail the experiences of

individuals at mid-career so I could illustrate how the mid-career time-frame is often

confusing and challenging. By using interviews as a primary method of collecting data, I

was trying to elicit responses from participants that would allow for candid and rich

descriptions of the mid-career experience. The data collection and analysis were in a

clear and consistent manner which involved participants in every part of the process,

many of who were interested in my study results. Ultimately, the study data provides

some new insight for individuals, institutions, and student affairs in understanding how

complex the mid-career time-frame is, and how their practices should change to reflect

this complexity.

Qualitative Sampling Limitations

Particular to using interviews, qualitative research notes a potential weakness in

gathering data filtered through the views of the participants (Creswell, 2003). Some of

the interviews were conducted in a natural setting such as a personal residence but many

were conducted at the participant’s institutions over the telephone (Creswell, 2003). I

would argue for many in student affairs the participant institutions are also more like

natural settings for the profession. Regardless, in this particular study I did not see this as

a limitation because the study was designed to examine and document the experiences of

individuals at mid-career who have attended one of two institutes. I also avoided what

Jones (2002) terms “backyard research” by seeking participants either at the host

institution or in colleagues with whom he has regular professional contact.

I first identified individuals who are currently at the mid-career stage within

student affairs, regardless of their functional area of expertise within the profession. The

78

definition used for the population will include current or former student affairs

professionals between the ages of 30-55, who have completed a master’s degree. Second,

I solicited only individuals who had participated in one of two institutes designed for mi-

level managers in student affairs. In selecting this sample, I also relied on criteria that,

according to Jones (2002), that are anchored in the research questions of the study.

Addressing the issue of sample size (12 participants), I was concerned more with the

quality and depth of information obtained through the interviews and research process

and less with the actual number of participants (2002). This also included paying careful

attention to constructing a “diverse” sample of participants (Jones, 2002), avoiding the

common practice in student affairs of just including participants based on race, gender, or

sexual identity.

Finally, I recognized my own biases and subjectivity because of the proximity to

the subject matter to my current status as a mid-career student affairs professional. Jones

(2002) calls on researchers to understand the importance of “one’s own personality and

the influence of this positionality on who and what can be known” (p.466).

Understanding the “complex dynamics attached to entering communities both similar to

and different from one’s own” (p. 466) also was important to the quality and validity of

this research study.

Conclusion

Using a mixed-methods study design, I was able to test thematic areas and build

on the results from a survey instrument for my interviews. The interviews not only

allowed me to test themes generated from the literature and the survey but more

importantly it allowed me to explore these themes with participants in a manner

79

permitting the development of rich and complex data. The richness of the participant

interviews helped me delve deep into the experiences of individuals who identified

themselves as mid-career, and begin to re-define this experience. The next two chapters

present data from the surveys and interviews interwoven throughout each chapter. The

reader will notice that no attempt was made to separate the responses of survey and

interview participants. I believed that the responses from both groups together added to

my understanding of the mid-career experience and its impact on these individuals.

80

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

The Mid-Career Student Affairs Experience

Contrary to a belief that mid-career is one point in a career, participants in this

study viewed mid-career as an evolution that began at entry-level, moved into mid-career,

and culminated with late-career. It was an evolution often met with professional and

personal confusion and frustration that came to symbolize the mid-career experience for

participants. In this chapter and the next both survey and interview participants share

their thoughts and feelings about their experiences as mid-career professionals in the field

of student affairs. The experiences of these participants provide a portrait of a mid-career

professional who is simultaneously the core of the field and the hope for the future. These

are individuals who exist in the most under-researched and misunderstood professional

timeframe in student affairs.

This chapter begins with the participants’ descriptions of their current experiences

as mid-career professionals at their institutions and in the field, and how these

experiences are influenced by the tension found at this career time-frame. Included are

descriptions of how other life issues, such as family, graduate programs, and work/life

balance influence the mid-career experience. In Chapter 5 I continue where this chapter

concludes by examining the participants’ satisfaction during the mid-career experience

and exploring the different ways professional development affects this time-frame. I

81

conclude the chapter with a candid examination of how the participants’ satisfying or

unsatisfying mid-career experiences can influence their decision to leave or remain in the

field. Together, in both chapters four and five, I take the reader through the complicated

and often uneasy time in the lives of mid-career student affairs professionals.

According to participants from this study, there is no clear definition of mid-

career in student affairs. Definitions given by participants were varied and included

different elements including title, responsibilities, aspirations, and number of years in the

field. Although not every study participant expressed a desire to move into senior-level

positions many did discuss how they hoped to gain valuable skills they could use as they

advanced professionally. However, many participants were confronted by their inability

to leave some of the entry-level responsibilities while assuming those duties associated

with mid-level work.

When creating the sample population for this study, I used familiar terms and

definitions from the literature and field to describe mid-career professionals in student

affairs. However, because the amount of research focusing on mid-career student

professionals is small in comparison to research on entry or senior-level professionals,

most research on the topic is no more than 15 years old. The dearth of research on mid-

career student affairs professionals was a major reason for undertaking this study.

Additionally important to this study, I was attempting to create a richer and more

expansive definition of mid-career based on the responses of both survey and interview

participants. Ultimately, after conducting the surveys and interviews I ended with two,

somewhat differing ideas about what it means to be a mid-career student affairs

professional, one from the literature and the other from the participants.

82

In conducting this study, I primarily focused on what the participants had to say

about their mid-career experience, while giving only brief descriptors of their age, area of

responsibility, gender, and institution to give the reader a snapshot of study participants. I

also solicited participants who had self-selected to participate in one of two mid-

managers institutes sponsored by student affairs professional organizations. One reason

for doing this was to allow individuals to participate in the study who had self-identified

themselves as mid-career professionals in what ever descriptions they chose to use.

With both the survey and interview participants, I specifically asked individuals to

define mid-career in student affairs and how they believed the field defined mid-career

student affairs. Overall, many participant responses paralleled research on mid-career,

citing skill sets, age, title, and responsibilities. This included items like supervision of

professionals, budgets, and other resources. It also included number of years in the field,

number of positions held since completing graduate school, and age. These responses

were very similar to how previous research defined mid-career in student affairs.

However, as I detail in this chapter, this was only one piece of a more complex definition

of mid-career provided by study participants.

All of the study participants viewed themselves as mid-career professionals in

student affairs. They used familiar terminology to describe parts of their experiences. But

as I detail in this study, many participants also had strong feelings of being caught

between two conflicting identities, one carrying the expectation of performing at a higher

level, and the other still clinging to lower-level, or entry-level responsibilities. As one

participant phrased it, [“it’s like] living in a kind of dual world” (George S.) with high-

level expectations and low-level responsibilities. This was often considered a confusing

83

time for many participants who, on the surface had the mid-career labels and terms used

by the field and institutions such as “director,” “supervisor,” or “manager,” but who still

held onto such tasks as food purchaser, table mover, or sign poster. The conflict between

these two “worlds” created confusion for participants and caused many to question their

role at their institution and in the field. This also led some participants to feel stuck at

mid-career and think about how long they could remain in the profession. The definition

of mid-career and the feelings of existing in two worlds became a critical aspect of how

participants viewed themselves professionally, and this idea continued to surface

throughout the study. It also contributed to, as I discuss in Chapter Five, participants’

feelings of dissatisfaction from existing in these two often contradictory worlds. Not

unlike the importance placed on professional development at mid-career, feelings of

being rooted in two worlds at mid-career surfaced throughout the entire study.

I will begin this chapter by discussing some familiar definitions of mid-career in

student affairs and detailing how many of the participants echo the familiar mid-career

descriptions found in the field and at institutions. I will also discuss participants’ own

ideas about what it means to be a mid-career professional in student affairs. I then

continue the chapter with participants describing how the definitions of mid-career can

often lead to their feeling as if they are rooted in two worlds: still performing entry-level

tasks while also performing higher level duties. I build on the idea of existing in two

worlds by describing participants’ thoughts of being overlooked or trapped by the field as

they advanced from entry-level to mid-career, staying in mid-career, and looking to

advance into senior-level positions. I then conclude the chapter by examining how

participants’ professional careers in student affairs at mid-career correspond with their

84

personal lives. This includes experiences involving their families, the balance between

their work and personal lives, and how their work in graduate school contributed to their

mid-career experience.

Defining Mid-Career

Only as far back as the early 1990s were researchers beginning to define mid-

career in student affairs. In 1990, Benke and Disque used the term mid-manager and

urged researchers to resist the idea to use terminology and research from sources outside

of student affairs. Gordon, Strode-Border, and Mann’s (1993) research on chief student

affairs officers produced a skill-set instead of specific descriptors to describe mid-career

professionals. Skills like supervision and direction were cited by the authors (1993).

Similarly, Fey and Carpenter (1996) looked at whether the individual reported to a chief

student affairs officer or occupied a position one level removed from that individual, and

was directly responsible for supervision of other professional staff members. In his earlier

research, Carpenter (1990) used a term also mentioned by some participants, that of a

mid-manager or mid-level professional. Fey and Carpenter (1996) also studied skill sets

of mid-level student affairs professionals, with their average research participant being a

41-year old female with seven years of experience in the profession and possessing a

masters degree. In 2004, the text Roads Taken was published, which chronicled the lives

of women who were currently in or had moved beyond mid-career in student affairs.

While the text does not specifically attempt to define mid-career, certain portions cite age

and responsibility in denoting mid-career. Throughout most of this research much was

lacking about what it means to be a mid-career student affairs professional.

85

Perhaps in a nod to the lack of research and inconsistent mid-career definitions in

the field, defining mid-career proved challenging and elusive for many study participants.

While none of the participants defined it exactly the same, there were some similarities

among the responses. Both survey and interview participants primarily viewed mid-

career in one of two ways: either as a time of significant and new responsibilities, or as a

position related to their title. Participants who did not view it as either a position or as the

taking on of additional responsibilities tended to define it as a level achieved by working

a certain number of years in the field. Only one participant specifically discussed how the

type of institution affected this definition although many did mention it, and a few others

either discussed mid-career within a larger context, which included types of institutions,

or questioned the term of mid-career outright.

In further discussions about defining mid-career, many participants commented

on the differences in positions and institutions that made defining mid-career difficult.

This fact seemed even more evident when comparing the demographic breakdown of

participants, even among the small sample represented public, private, large, and small

institutions. In addition, the range of functional areas represented by participants included

almost every position type in the student affairs. While it would seem the participants in

this study epitomized the diffuse nature of student affairs in higher education, as the next

section will demonstrate, mid-career is less about how positions and institutions define

individuals, and more about how the experience defines mid-career.

Positions and Titles

Participants who defined mid-career from a positional standpoint used titles such

as Associate Director, Director, and, even Associate Dean. Many participants cited

86

examples from the field and their institutions to support the mid-career titles they used.

However, no participant felt the position of Dean or Vice-President was within the realm

of mid-career. One participant described it as “[not] …..entry-level but yet there are still

positions you aspire too” (Francis H.). Another specified the mid-career positions as

Director or Associate Director, but also felt they were an individual who was thinking of

“moving on, moving up, or over” (Mary S.)

More so than their interview counterparts, survey participants used references to

titles or positions when defining mid-career. “Basically, you have too much experience to

be considered entry-level and you’re too young to be a Dean of Students or VP of Student

Affairs” (survey participant). Another survey participant made a similar comment,

“individuals who are not at the Vice Presidential level but who are Directors or Associate

Directors of Programs.” Among the interview participants who discussed mid-career in

terms of position, only one believed it was tied to a particular institution where a position

was located. Both of these sections represent many of the feelings participants expressed

about the positions and titles associated with mid-career, an existing connection to entry-

level and a time to begin thinking about their future in the field.

Mid-Career Responsibilities and Skills

In discussing mid-career, titles and positions were often mentioned, but

participants more frequently used words to describe levels of responsibility or skill-sets

that mid-career professionals would normally have achieved. Skills like supervision,

budgeting, and managing people or areas were most cited by both interview and survey

participants. Interestingly, these were the same skill-sets mentioned by both interview

and survey participants as being abilities they were lacking as they moved into mid-

87

career. Participants also considered this a time when they felt that, as professionals they

should have more responsibility for the operation of their department as well as the

ability to make decisions that had larger impact on the campus. In the next section of this

chapter, I present more thoughts from participants relating to what would become a

recurring theme in this study – that mid-career was a professional existence involving

lower level responsibilities coupled with that of higher level expectations.

Professional position titles were often mentioned by survey participants, but those

who commented on skills at mid-career appeared to agree with the sentiments expressed

by the following interview participant: “I think people typically view the mid-manager by

[his or her] title, [and] they will assume or not assume that you’re in a mid-manager role

by your title” (Slade L.). A survey participant expressed similar thoughts, believing it was

responsibility and position together that defined mid-career in the field. As they stated,

“A mid-level professional is an appropriate blend of a front-line practitioner and a

supervisor.” Another survey participant added this to it, saying, “[to be]…a mid-career

student affairs professional means to be supervising professional staff, to be a decision

maker and key policy deliverer (and sometimes creator), to be able to make independent

decisions on important issues…”

In addition to supervision, budgeting, and managing people, one participant saw

mid-career as a time to begin mentoring entry-level professionals in the field while

finding new mentors from the ranks of the senior leadership. “A definition that I

subscribe to is often the glue between SSAO(s) and entry-level professionals” (Frank B.).

This participant also thought mid-career was a time when individuals were considering

continuing their education.

88

While many participants believed the amount of responsibility increased at mid-

career one participant felt that even when making decisions with great impact the

ultimate responsibility still fell on the senior student affairs administrator. “Of course I

am going to be held responsible by him (SSAO) but when it comes outside of the

division…he’s going to be the one that’s going to be ultimately held responsible for the

actions of everyone in the division” (George S.). Sometimes, the level of responsibility

came with the experience or number of years in the field.

Years in the Field

Only a few participants from both the survey and interviews defined mid-career

based on the number of years an individual had spent in the field. Of those few, only one

relied solely on the number of years in the field as the benchmark for mid-career. This

individual had been in the field almost 10 years and contrasted student affairs with the

corporate world where she believed mid-career came earlier in terms of the years of

experience. “I think once you pass 5-6 years you start to become a mid-career

professional. In the corporate world you are still pretty new but in our profession you

easily become seasoned especially within your discipline” (Alice N.). Another interview

participant defined mid-career by the number of years in experience but also by the

responsibility: “…I am thinking a person who’s been in the field full-time five

years…who is preferably supervising a few graduate or full-time staff members” (Sarah

F.). A survey participant also defined mid-career by the number of years: “…you have

been in the field for longer than 5 years, but don’t have the status of being called Dr. or

Dean!”

89

Defining mid-career using the number of years experience was not shared by most

participants even though professionals in the field and institutions recruiting for open

positions in student affairs often highlight the number of years experience an individual

possesses.

Participants never viewed the number of years an individual had been working in

the field as the sole descriptor in defining mid-career. Comparisons were made between

student affairs and the private sector suggesting lower benchmarks for student affairs

professionals in reaching certain career timeframes. Even as institutions and the field

often attach years of experience to position requirements, participants still coupled years

in the field with some other indicator, such as position or responsibility. Of these two, the

types of skills or responsibilities an individual possessed were more frequently regarded

as a hallmark in defining mid-career. For many participants, the types of skills one

possessed and their current position or title were often tied together in defining mid-

career. However, responsibilities, titles, or years of experience was never a complete

definition of mid-career and often led to confusion about how mid-career professionals

exist.

Mid-Career: Between Two Worlds

The responses from both study groups about the definition of mid-career often

included discussions about the feelings of being somewhere between entry and senior-

level positions. It was a time for many who felt as if they were caught between having too

much or too little experience in the field. This was viewed negatively by some

participants because they felt labeled by those professionals who were in senior-level

positions. “It means waiting. It means relying on others. It means being subject to others

90

actions or inactions. It means not being able to properly lead – but to follow, even more

than at the entry level.” (survey participant)

As I will present later in this chapter, the issue of feeling “stuck” at mid-career

influenced how participants also viewed their mid-career experience and is detailed more

fully in the next section of this chapter. However, a few participants who discussed the

definition of mid-career also commented on their feelings associated with feeling stuck at

mid-career and included it in their definitions. One interview participant felt she was

sometimes not viewed as a professional who was prepared to move into different

positions. “…at the same time no one sees as you moving up, either too young or don’t

have enough experience, kind of caught in the stratosphere…” (Nancy J.). In perhaps a

reference to professional development support at mid-career, one survey participant knew

where she wanted to go but, “it is an awkward and uncomfortable time. I can see the

position I want, but I have trouble figuring out how to get there.”

Another interview participant viewed mid-career from a positive and negative

position: “It is an opportunity to learn a lot of knowledge in mid-career about university

processes and you are not protected like young professionals. When you move into mid-

career you play with the ‘big dogs.’ It means the VP is not smiling for you or happy all

the time…” (Kathy S.). A survey participant shared this idea by defining mid-career as

“…a position that serves as a important link between the entry level and upper level

administration…[the mid-career professional has] the responsibility of being a

“gatekeeper” of information as well which can aid or impede the vitality and

functionality of a whole department.” Perhaps the most intense yet immensely lasting

definition of mid-career was offered by a survey participant. “A mid-career student

91

affairs professional is probably the worst position to be in. If heaven is being in a senior-

level position and hell is being relegated to an entry-level position, then I’m in

purgatory.” While most participant definitions were not as explicit, this definition does

illustrate the feelings of being in the middle for many participants. Overall, participants

had a much easier time defining mid-career individually. When asked how the field

defines mid-career in student affairs participants had a much more difficult time

providing clear definitions.

How Student Affairs Defines Mid-Career

When examining literature on the topic of mid-career in student affairs,

definitions of mid-career focused on age, position, or experience. As I presented in the

previous section, the reality of how individuals in the field actually define mid-career is

more complex. Many interview participant responses included comments on age,

position, or experience but they also focused on how it feels to be in mid-career and the

kinds of responsibility individuals often possess. Because many participants in this study

were active in professional associations and in the field they were also asked to discuss

how the field of student affairs defines mid-career. Responses to this question were not as

focused as the individual definitions of mid-career but still touched on issues of position,

age, and responsibility. Additionally, in this section I only present responses from

interview participants because survey participants were not asked to respond this

question. What stood out from participant responses was the lack of clarity in the field

about what it means to be at mid-career in student affairs.

Confusion in the Field

92

After attending one of two Mid-Managers Institutes (MMI) sponsored by ACPA

or NASPA/SACSA, many participants were still confused about how the field defines

mid-career. Some participants believed attending an MMI would simplify the definition

based on the types of professionals in attendance. Unfortunately, this did not provide

enough clarity and left a few participants relying on their individual feelings about the

status of mid-career in student affairs. “…I sat there wondering with some people there

(MMI), are they at mid-level or do they just want to be?” (emphasis added) (Janet R.) “I

thought it was interesting because there were actually some people at MMI who, by title,

were in positions that you might commonly think ‘oh yeah that goes with mid-manager’

but by function they probably were not” (Slade L.). “Having attended MMI this summer

we had people really that were at multiple levels - it was all over the map” (Bill M.). In

an apparent paradox, the two professional associations attempting to gather and assist

mid-career professionals were perhaps unknowingly contributing to the confusion. The

confusion for some participants also extended into the entire field of student affairs.

Confusion about how the student affairs field defines mid-career was felt by some

participants. Some felt the field did not define it well regardless of one’s position or

institution. “I don’t think the field defines it very well at all” (Kathy S.). “I don’t know I

get confused about how it is defined” (Bill M.). While not commenting negatively on

how the field defines mid-career other participants felt the definition was very broad and

covered all types of positions. “I think it tends to run the gamut from that to people

who’ve been in the field for many, many, many years even chief housing officers would

be considered in some circles mid-managers as they’re not student affairs vice

chancellors.” (Sarah F.). Another also defined it broadly by concentrating on just the type

93

of position one possessed, “I truly believe it is the type of position and experience you

have had” (Alice N.). Some participants returned to familiar responses (as seen in the

previous section) with years of experience, supervision, and handling budgets as part of

their responses. “For the field I think that they would probably say you need to have at

least five years experience, probably supervise some others, have some budget

responsibility” (Slade L.). Another participant added, “probably the Director level with

opportunities to go higher, supervising more people…” (Francis H.). Most participants

were able to comment about experience or years in the field but some also felt there was

something else that made it difficult to define within the field.

Diversity of Institutions

Participants who believed the definition was unclear attributed it to the variety of

institutions and positions in the field. Returning to the idea of the diversity of institutions

and positions in the field, some participants believed this issue would hamper ever

creating a clear and concise definition of mid-career which included the entire field.

“…because the fact that titles are so institutionally specific you could be a Director and

be more steps away from the President then I am now” (Kathy S). “You could be in year

three and be an Assistant Dean somewhere and possibly be heading to another smaller

institution to be in an even more upper administrative position” (Alice N.). Another

commented along similar thinking, “you might have an Associate Director at a large

institution that might equate a Director level at a smaller institution” (Francis H.). The

breadth and diversity of the field and, more importantly, institutions, created confusion

for some in how the field really defines mid-career. One participant pared it down to a

definition which has probably served in the past and will continue to serve the field when

94

defining mid-career. “The best definition I know if is kind of a deconstructionist

definition which is not entry level and not senior level” (Kathy S.).

Defining mid-career in student affairs seemed an easier exercise for those

participants who used their own ideas and experiences in defining it. Attaching skill-sets,

position titles, or years experience were often included in responses. For some

participants, it was a time of feeling unsure and overlooked by senior-level professionals

to advancing within the profession. Discussing how the field defines mid-career,

participants were much less clear and sometimes felt it was confusing even though many

believed skills and experiences would be included in the definition. The diversity and

number of institutions also contributed to an unclear definition of mid-career. Even as the

field, institutions, and individuals attempted to add some clarity and continuity to the

definition of mid-career, participants felt the breadth and diversity of their profession was

making this an impossible task. This confusion began to seep into how participants

viewed their overall mid-career experience.

Ultimately, with so many variables involved in defining mid-career there was no

simple and concise way to define mid-career for individuals and the field. While

important to the study, adhering to a more structured definition of mid-career or creating

a working definition of mid-career was not an initial focus of the study. However, in

detailing the experiences of mid-career professionals, study participants from the surveys

and the interviews had important experiences and insights that I believed warranted

heightened emphasis. The next section details an important insight I developed while

discussing the mid-career experience with participants. Participants felt as if their

experience at mid-career was often a time of existing in two different worlds.

95

Rooted in Two Worlds

In the student affairs profession, as individuals move from being entry-level

professionals to mid-level, it often creates in them feelings of existing in two professional

worlds. As student affairs professionals advance they gain more experience, and the

expectations and responsibilities change to reflect new or different job-functions. Moving

from an entry-level position to a mid-career position also often presents new challenges

and opportunities for student affairs professionals. Unfortunately, for many participants

in this study, the ability to completely identify themselves as being in mid-career once

they moved out of an entry-level position was hampered by feeling “rooted” in two

worlds: One world existed where participants felt like an entry-level professional

performing the same tasks they had when they entered the field, while co-existing in a

second world where the expectations and responsibilities that often come with being at

mid-career were much greater. Participants found mid-career to be a challenging place to

exist because they were not entirely clear how they should respond to it and also, if it

would ever change. Because changes in their professional and personal lives were

affected by the challenges participants faced at mid-career, the experience of moving

from entry-level into mid-career and the feelings of existing at mid-career and trying to

advance are discussed in the next several sections. In the final three sections of the

chapter, I examine how the personal lives of participants often intersect, influence, and

even compound their mid-career professional experience.

Moving from Entry-Level into Mid-Career and Beyond

96

With most of the participants in their third or fourth post-masters position in

student affairs, many felt feelings of confusion and dissatisfaction from reaching mid-

career and that it did not always translate into leaving entry-level tasks behind. There was

a feeling that after reaching mid-career expectations would change for both professional

development and career advancement. Some participants believed that even at mid-career

they could not completely escape performing some entry-level tasks. “Sometimes I don’t

think we ever escape programming responsibility, even as we move up there may be

some programs that we are involved in we have direct responsibility for or other times

involvement with our other staff” (Bill M.). Another participant commented it might

depend on the institution you are currently working at. “It really depends on the

institution you are at. I think we will constantly have those entry-level type tasks” (Alice

N.). “I think it’s confusing for mid-level people” (Kathy S.). The confusion for some

participants turned into how to exist in both worlds and how to deal with those feelings.

While most participants were able to exist in both entry-level and mid-career

worlds, some felt this dualistic role could create opportunities where they could be taken

advantage of. Clear and deliberate expectations from supervisors were described as one

way to combat these feelings. One participant believed one of the supervisor’s roles was

to communicate why certain responsibilities were taken on for mid-career professionals.

“If you don’t have somebody who can verbalize that well you are going to end up feeling

like the cleaning lady who gets asked to do everything but does not get credited for the

sparkling house” (Kathy S.). Another participant believed the idea of being rooted in two

worlds professionally was difficult for individuals to understand until reaching the level

of mid-career. “I will tell you that it is a very difficult (emphasis added) concept to grasp

97

until you’ve ascended to that level” (Slade L.). It was difficult for some participants while

others had a more fluid approach to how they existed in both worlds.

Other participants were less confused and more flexible in how they existed in

both worlds. What might be considered a hallmark characteristic of the field, one

participant stated, “You are between the two worlds and not feel pressured and just have

to roll with it and be ok” (Margaret T.). However, she added, “….or get the PhD and

hope to move up quickly” (Margaret T.). Another commented, “We just do it until the job

is done” (Sarah F.). Learning to balance the two worlds was often a difficult task for

participants.

Balancing the entry-level and mid-career worlds was challenging for many

participants in their professional and personal lives. Participants often cited uncertainty in

how to act because many were now charged with significant responsibility but they still

wanted to support their staff at events and programs. Most interview participants had

levels of responsibility not previously experienced, such as supervision, budgeting, and

reporting. They often felt stress at having to live in two worlds which sometimes caused

confusion and distrust among their staff members because they wanted to be supportive,

but at the same time, perform at a higher level within the institution. “We learn all the

team building skills, working down with the troops and it is what we talk and what we

preach” (Slade L.). He added,

……but you don’t want to be too close to the troops and working with

them because if you are then you’re going to be seen as still one of the

troops…so from the other side that collegiality and that partnership that I

98

talked about nobody is going to trust you because you’re still close to the

other side. (Slade L)

Another participant felt torn because she was often in the role of supporting

programs from her department or division, but was also expected to make important

decisions affecting more of the campus. “I think that it is a very awkward position to be

in to be called to make other decisions where you are seen in a much different light”

(Francis H.). Some participants had never thought about existing in two worlds

professionally until they began to discuss being a mid-career professional. One interview

participant described how he lived in these two separate worlds, “I live in this kind of

dual world where I am, I may do some kind of entry-level things, in regards to my

immediate supervisor I’m thought to be one of those big decision makers by the people

who are subordinate to me” (George S.). Sometimes the conflict between the two worlds

also seeped into the personal lives of participants.

As participants moved into mid-career positions many took on more responsibility

and looked to delegating other tasks within their departments. Asking other individuals

within their departments to come early or stay late for a program, setting up food or

tables, and being present to support events were examples of delegated tasks given by

participants. However, many wanted to delegate more but still had or felt a responsibility

to perform some entry-level tasks to assure the success of a program or event. By

delegating less it caused stress on their personal lives by taking time away from families

and activities outside of their positions. One interview participant commented it was a

difficult place to be because “with my family, with my lifestyle I would like to be able to

delegate more” (Francis H.). Some participants simply did not have any other staff to

99

delegate these tasks to, “…let somebody else load the food on the tables, and make sure

the plates and cups are there, make sure the signs are put out for such and such event but I

don’t have anybody to delegate those tasks to” (Francis H.). Ultimately, as many

participants struggled with existing in both worlds, they knew whatever they did to

support their staffs or perform entry-level tasks, their other work still had to be

completed.

At the end of the day, whether or not everybody on my staff thinks ‘well

that was really cool that you came to that program last night’ but if my

report’s’ not turned in my boss is saying ‘what do you mean you didn’t

have time to do that report, you’re the Associate Director why is that not

done?’ (Slade L.)

As the participants moved from entry-level into mid-career their expectations and

responsibilities changed in their professional lives. However, some expressed conflicting

feelings between these two career time-frames. Many participants were often still

performing tasks associated with entry-level positions yet taking on higher level tasks and

learning new skills. This created confusion for some participants, and resentment for

others which lead to negative feelings towards their institutions and the field. Some

participants also felt trapped between entry-level and mid-career, which often lead to

feeling they could not advance fully into mid-career or into senior-level positions.

Moving from entry-level into mid-career was a difficult time for participants. For many

participants, once reaching mid-career they developed feelings of being trapped or

“stuck” at mid-career. In the following section, I examine participant reactions and

feelings of being stuck at mid-career.

100

Feeling “Stuck” at Mid-Career Mid-career is an important time in the professional lives of student affairs

professionals. It is a time when issues concerning career advancement and professional

development become more important to lives of student affairs professionals because of

changes in professional and personal needs. It is also important because more time in

student affairs is often spent at mid-career then at either entry or senior level. The limited

opportunity for career growth or advancement was one of the three frustrations in the

work life of mid-level administrators, according to Johnsrud, Heck, & Rosser, (2000).

While some participants expressed a desire to advance in the field, others were content to

remain at the mid-career level. This presented a challenge for participants who had

chosen to remain at mid-career, or who were simply evaluating what might be the next

movement in mid-career when thinking about their professional futures. Benke and

Disque (1990) concluded more research was needed on career mobility to address

questions of mid-manager immobility and advancement.

The literature has used a term for mid-career individuals in student affairs who are

confused or unsure about what steps to take next in their career. The term “stuck” is cited

in literature (Benke & Disque, 1990; Carpenter, Guido-DiBrito, & Kelly, 1987; Hancock,

1988) to describe when mid-career professionals are thinking of career advancement but

are feeling the inability to advance beyond mid-career. In the following section, I

examine participants’ responses to the feeling of being “stuck” at mid-career. Particular

101

attention was paid to survey participants who used the term “stuck” to refer to mid-career

without being prompted by a question from me.

Feelings of being stuck at mid-career centered around two major issues on why

this might occur. One issue was based on how individuals who felt stuck dealt with the

situation. Some participants believed this centered around personal issues happening at

the same time. Others thought whatever the reason, personal or professional, it was up to

the individual to change this type of thinking and move on. The second issue for

individuals feeling stuck at mid-career involved the narrowing career ladder for student

affairs professionals as they looked at advancing into senior-level positions. In 1983,

Harder concluded that in 25 years the number of senior student affairs officer (SSAO)

positions in higher education would become increasingly smaller. Some participants

acknowledged this created fewer and fewer positions for individuals at mid-career who

wished to advance in the field.

One of the issues compounding the lack of advancement opportunities was how

the field viewed and supported mid-career professionals who did not wish to advance

beyond a mid-career position. I discuss this issue in a later section in this chapter that

examines how mid-career individuals are often overlooked even after choosing not to

advance. Whether the issue of feeling stuck was viewed as an individual concern or as a

problem within the field, it was a discussion that elicited a number of responses from

participants.

Participants who commented on the issue of feeling stuck at mid-career as an

individual concern cited different reasons for why this would occur. Some felt that

because mid-career was also a time of many personal changes this “stuck” feeling could

102

have come from the personal commitments that individuals had accumulated by this point

in their lives, such as mortgages or families. One participant described it as “life

baggage” that made it “easier to stay stuck or resolve or reconcile the frustration” (Carrie

P.). Another described it as an “external pressure to stay where they are” (Mary S.). The

idea of where someone was in their life situation was also related to limits of location.

A participant without a partner or family linked it to being geographically

restricted because of family commitments. This sentiment was also echoed by

participants with families who were limited by location and their family commitments.

“If I was willing to do a national search like I was when I was entry level then there

would be lots more positions but there are just more factors for me to consider at this

point, that is very real” (Julie S.). There were also some individuals who needed to

evaluate where they were in their careers, and make some personal choices regarding

what they should do next. “The other thing I recognize is that a lot of professionals stay

in jobs because they are comfortable long beyond what they should be” (Margaret T.).

While not all participants felt as strongly about individual responsibility, many agreed

that mid-career was a time filled with conflicting personal issues that contributed to

feelings of being stuck.

Some participants also discussed how the professional structure and reality of

being at mid-career in student affairs could influence feelings of being stuck. Lunsford

(1984) concluded that in order to attain an SSAO position, individuals needed to move

out of their current institution if they wanted to move up into senior-level administration.

Participants acknowledged that as professionals progressed through student affairs there

were fewer senior-level positions for mid-career professionals. Bender (1980), Bossert

103

(1982), and Evans (1988) all cited fewer advancement opportunities as a factor affecting

attrition. “It makes me frustrated… because I see how easy it is to get stuck in the field

because of the number of higher level positions” Margaret T.). “When I think about

advancement there are much less opportunities, the organizational chart gets very

narrower” (Julie S.). “Most departments are pretty flat in term(s) of organizational

structure and people don’t leave, meaning there are few opportunities for advancement”

(survey participant).

Issues of advancement were also sometimes hampered by changes in mid-career

professionals’ personal lives which limited their mobility in seeking out senior-level

advancement opportunities. “I think a lot of people might feel stuck if there are no

positions at their institution to move to and they enjoy what they are doing. I am sort of in

that predicament now, I enjoy what I’m doing but …I don’t want to go to another

institution to get it” (Francis H.). One interview participant cited the broadness of the

mid-manager sector and people staying longer in their current positions as they advance

as reasons for feeling stuck (Sarah F.). An interview participant felt stuck currently

because she felt her supervisors did not see her beyond the position she was currently in.

…being at mid-career is a tough place to be because they…people in a

position of authority…don’t necessarily see you as capable. If they have

somebody else they can go to who has one more year of experience or a

higher degree or a better title even if the responsibilities are the same then

sometimes you get passed over. (Nancy J.)

A few survey participants also expressed similar feelings. “I am challenged because I feel

in the middle. I am at the Directors level, but am consistently expected to perform at a

104

level that is one professional step higher than I am compensated for” (survey participant).

“I feel like I am “stuck” doing Student Life forever until someone sees my potential”

(survey participant). Even as the number of senior-level opportunities narrowed and

personal circumstances changed some participants still found ways of not feeling stuck.

As participants grappled with feelings of being stuck at mid-career, some offered

ways to combat this issue and remain viable in the field. For some participants this meant

changing their career goals and how they saw themselves at mid-career. “Would it be fine

to remain pretty much where I am at and find other ways to grow professionally without

having to move organizationally? Part of the reconsideration process is rethinking the

importance of professional goals” (Julie S.). Presenting at conferences, building their

skills, taking on additional responsibilities, and professional collaboration, were examples

participants offered as ways to combat feeling stuck at mid-career. One interview

participant offered a simple suggestion that had worked for her in the past: “It takes a

while for that ideal position to open up you have to be patient” (Sarah F.). Whatever ways

participants offered to not feel stuck at mid-career it was clear from the responses more

of the responsibility was on the individual than anywhere else.

As many participants offered ways to combat feeling stuck, there were also a few

participants who felt differently. Participants felt not only that it was the responsibility of

the individual to not feel stuck, but it was also entirely the responsibility of the individual

to become “unstuck” at mid-career. One interview participant believed that if someone

was feeling stuck, he or she should have a certain level of “ambition and initiative to …if

it is that important to you, you will find a way to become unstuck” (Frank B.). Another

105

participant portrayed mid-career as a time with many new opportunities so individuals

would not feel stuck.

…there are opportunities where people can spend a whole career really at

mid-level and maybe even assume new and different responsibilities or

become employed in a whole new office, there are opportunities out there

if they are creative and can do that. (Bill M.)

One interview participant was not quite as forgiving: “….my reaction to them is

‘waaa,’ you know it really is a situation where I think that if they are feeling stuck I think

the onus is probably more on them…if they are feeling stuck they’ve limited their

options” (Slade L.). Finally, another interview participant commented on how feeling

stuck is just part of life at mid-career and perhaps it is not negative as it has been

presented. “There is just a world of ‘stuckness’ at this age…it happens to everybody as

you get older you realize that whole world is not open before you, a lot of it is about life”

(Kathy S.).

Feelings of being stuck at mid-career in student affairs are triggered by different

issues. Narrowing professional advancement opportunities, personal commitments, and

comfort level were some examples given by participants. However, many believed that

by doing certain things like keeping current, building partnerships, and rethinking career

goals individuals could combat feeling stuck at mid-career. Because feeling stuck began

at the individual level those professionals who recognized the responsibility of not feeling

stuck and found ways to keep themselves professionally and personally engaged at mid-

career were more likely to not suffer the negative consequences. Some participants who

felt stuck also believed the field of student affairs contributed to this feeling. Interview

106

participants who had felt stuck or understood why it happened to others at mid-career

discussed how the pressure to advance within the field into senior-level positions also

contributed to feeling stuck. The pressure to advance often surfaced at times when

individuals were evaluating their professional and personal lives. Caught between

performing entry and mid-level tasks and feeling like they could not advance beyond

mid-career, they believed the field was also contributing to their being overlooked at mid-

career. Whether it meant advancing in the field or finding your niche at mid-career,

participants often felt unsupported by the field in this decision.

Remaining at Mid-Career Should participants move up into the senior-level ranks of student affairs or

remain content at mid-career? As participants reached mid-career it became an

opportunity to ask these questions, and examine their professional careers and their

futures. For some it meant moving to the next level typically into senior-level positions

within student affairs. But for others it was a time to decide if staying at a mid-career or

mid-level position was the best situation for them. The decision to not move up in the

field or out of the field completely brought some comments from participants about how

the field recognizes individuals who do not anticipate leaving mid-career or mid-level

positions. Because some participants believed the field focuses on individuals moving up

in the field, they believed this created the potential to overlook professionals who wanted

to stay at mid-career. This section examines participant reactions to the issue of

overlooking mid-career professionals who are not interested in moving up in the field.

Mid-career was also a time to evaluate how participants’ professional career was

staying in balance with their personal lives. In Chapter Five, I specifically examine how

107

participants with families, or thinking of starting a family, were balancing support for

their professional and personal lives at mid-career. Much of the discussion in the section

focuses on the few participants who did not have a partner or a family.

Throughout the discussions with participants many expressed interest in

advancing in the field of student affairs. Some had completed doctoral degrees to further

their professional careers. Others had worked many years in the field and were

progressing professionally into positions with increasing responsibly and seniority. These

participants felt the expectation from the field was for individuals to continue advancing

professionally throughout their careers until reaching senior level positions. However,

there was a smaller group of participants who were not eager, and even in some cases,

completely uninterested in advancing professionally within the field. The reasons were

varied: some were planning on stopping to raise a family, while others were continuing

their education, or were uninterested in dealing with campus politics. Still, others were

leaving the field entirely but staying in higher education either to teach or work in a

different area at an institution.

Participants intending to stay at mid-career expressed concern that the field’s

expectations of mid-career professionals was challenging to overcome and at times

counter-productive to professional growth. With the field reinforcing the idea that

talented individuals at mid-career advance into senior-level positions, many participants

felt this message negatively impacted how they continued to grow professionally while in

mid-career. It became an interesting paradox for some participants who saw the field

encouraging individuals to advance yet for them, the reality was that they could not or did

not want to advance. This was listed as a challenge for one survey participant, “Not

108

feeling the pressure from others to continue up the ladder. Knowing that I am successful

and that I don’t have to keep striving to achieve success in the student affairs hierarchy.”

It was also challenging to an interview participant who thought advancement was tied to

how the field viewed career progress. “It is an expectation put on you by the profession

because that is how you make more money or move up” (Frank B.).

Another interview participant felt senior-level professionals in the field were very

interested in getting mid-career professionals to advance into senior positions. “People

who I talk to who are at senior level positions they’re always pushing, and pushing, and

pushing for those at mid-managers levels to get the additional education, get the

experience to get to that level” (George S.). He continued to express concern that mid-

career professionals are sometimes put in positions that required them to defend their

desire to not move into senior level positions.

People I know who are at mid-managers level who are ok with that it even

seems as though when they talk about it, to almost have to defend that…it

seems almost (like) they have to defend that position like that is not the

norm in student affairs to want to stay at mid-manager. (George S.)

Another participant also felt there was pressure in the field to advance but also took a

more realistic approach, “There is a push to move ever upward in the hierarchy, but many

of us don’t want to be SSAOs, nor can we all be” (survey participant).

Another reason cited by some participants for staying at mid-career was the

continued breadth of experience many were getting there. Participants did not want to

lose the ability to be involved in many different aspects while maintaining some

significant responsibilities at their institutions. Continued contact with students was also

109

mentioned as a reason for not wanting to move into senior-level positions. “I have been

challenged to the point of how much farther up the ladder do I want to move up because

with each step up… you move further away from students” (Slade L.). Participants felt

once you reached the dean or vice-president level you would lose the daily student

contact that many cited as one reason for staying in the field. “I don’t want to be a dean

or VP, not something I aspire to….I have my hands in a lot of different things, more

experience with campus politics of the university, which I like but I am not ultimately

responsible for the final decision.” (Margaret T.)

While some participants bemoaned moving into senior-level positions others were

less concerned about the impact of not advancing beyond mid-career. Another participant

saw that mid-career professionals were not only getting overlooked by the field in many

cases but were also finding an expectation to take on more responsibilities. “Yet the mid-

managers are working their butt(s) off but not feeling that we are accomplishing as much

as we could. That does have me a bit concerned” (Sarah F.).

Lateral moves within the field were considered viable options by some

participants who wanted to be continually challenged in their mid-career positions. “The

lateral move is a very viable career option because you want to come to work with

excitement and energy and be able to do your best. At mid-level it is more about fit and

fitting into your life then it is just having the job.” (Carrie P.)

Another interview participant also felt the field was generally supportive “as a

whole” (Francis H.) of professionals who did not choose to move into senior-level

positions. “I think the field is very supportive of getting where you want to be and being

happy there, and if moving up, moving to those SSAOs is something you want to do then

110

it’s supportive of that but I don’t think it shuns those of us who (are) comfortable where

we are either.” (Francis H.)

She was concerned that different institutions react differently to individuals who

choose to stay in mid-career positions.

A lot of institutions even don’t look highly upon internal promotions. I see

that as an obstacle they always want to bring somebody in from the

outside with new ideas or whatever. (Francis H.)

I don’t feel that I’m necessarily striving for a senior level position…I feel

like I’m intentionally growing professionally that will help me…progress

professionally and adapt my position to those new skills. (survey

participant)

If being at mid-career is the place someone feels they need to be then it is

a place to do strong work. (survey participant)

I think that it’s ok to want to, I mean, gee if your gift was to be a middle-

manager then live that gift. (Slade L.)

I simply want to be effective in my job and want to have an impact on the

students and their learning. If that is buried in middle management then so

be it. (survey participant)

Several of the final participants’ comments appear to coincide with research on

transformative learning which reflects on an individual’s struggle to “be who he or she is

called to be” (Kovan & Dirkx, p. 102), in this case at mid-career.

The expectation that student affairs professionals advance from mid-career into

senior-level positions was often felt by many participants. The expectation to advance

111

was viewed negatively by some participants who saw it as counter-productive to their

professional development.. Even with feeling pressure to advance some participants still

believed their niche was working in mid-career positions and found ways to enrich their

professional lives. For those participants looking to advance, they looked to the field,

institutions, and their supervisors to help prepare them.

Preparing Mid-Career Student Affairs Professionals for Advancement

Once individuals reach mid-career their professional needs change from when

they first entered the profession. Some of these changes originate from individuals taking

on new responsibilities or tasks with mid-career positions. Other changes are related to

overall career and professional development to prepare them as they move either through

mid-career into senior level positions or continue in different mid-career positions. The

field of student affairs creates conferences, institutes, and workshops to assist individuals

with their professional development in mid-career. Additionally, institutions can create

opportunities for individual professional development available to individuals as needed.

Among the participants in this study there were different responses to how professional

development happens, where it happens, and what impedes it from happening at mid-

career. In this section, I will discuss how mid-career professionals seek and receive

professional development when they reach mid-career and beyond.

If senior-level positions were seen by many participants as their next professional

move, both survey and interview participants alike were split about where that should

occur. Some believed the professional associations in the field are the main conduits for

preparing individuals for advancement. Other participants believed it becomes more of an

institutional issue with individuals receiving different opportunities depending on their

112

present positions. Regardless of where participants thought it should happen, most agreed

it was occurring in some fashion, but there was some responsibility of the individual to

seek out opportunities for advancement. Since all of the participants for this research had

attended one of two Mid-Managers Institutes sponsored by two of the larger and more

well-known professional associations, the following section details participant responses

relating to this area.

Since associations like NASPA and ACPA are better known in the field of student

affairs and participants in this study attended one of two sponsored institutes, discussion

about advancement resulted mostly from these perspectives. Participants who discussed

professional associations believed, generally speaking, that opportunities for

advancement and professional development were available. They also believed that

conferences, institutes, and workshops for professionals tended to attract a variety of

professionals from the field with important issues to share with other colleagues. There

were also other niche associations that specifically targeted professionals in certain areas

of the field, such as Interfraternity Institute (IFI), National Intramural and Recreational

Sports Association (NIRSA) and regional associations like the Southern Association of

College Student Affairs (SACSA). While most participants who discussed the role of

professional associations in advancement did not create any distinction between NASPA

and ACPA, a few did express some differences.

For a few interview participants a difference cited between NASPA and ACPA

was more philosophical then functional and appeared to be based on participant

experience. One participant believed the advancement and professional development

opportunities available at an association like NASPA are developed along more

113

professional mentoring and informal discussions at conferences and institutes. He felt the

value in these types of conversations was more important than opportunities offered from

the official “textbook” (Slade L.). There was also no distinction made between title or

position among participants in these informal conversations. Comparing ACPA with

NASPA the participant felt ACPA had more success in serving different “…pockets

through the different commissions” (Slade L.). In the end, the participant believed both

associations served a purpose in the area of advancement and professional development

at mid-career, but did so with different approaches. Other participants did not express as

much satisfaction with the opportunities for advancement created by the professional

associations and made no distinction among the different associations.

Even as many participants discussed the value of the professional associations and

the opportunities for professional development they provided, some expressed concern

about how it was happening. One interview participant stopped short of calling the effort

“haphazard” (Carrie P.) but was concerned that the effort might not be intentional or

focused enough (Carrie P.). She believed mid-managers were talking with each other and

creating opportunities at conferences and institutes for mid-career professionals but was

not convinced it was “…outcomes-driven by way of SSAO (senior student affairs

officers) folks who are asking how are we cultivating the top dog future?” (Carrie P.).

She also commented on the targeted opportunities for entry or senior level professionals.

“It is a bit more intentional at the entry-level because that is what our masters programs

are doing, and the PhD programs are so out there for some people because of the time

commitment” (Carrie P.). “Professional conferences often include LOTS of sessions

presented by entry-level individuals who are gung-ho about moving up in their career, but

114

not many sessions for those in the career a while” (survey participant). “There is

professional development at conferences; however, most are aimed towards new and

seasoned professionals” (survey participant).

Another interview participant was also not sure the field was creating

opportunities for professional development at mid-career but believed the awareness level

within the field was increasing.

We are doing a lot more but at the same time when I go to conferences I

still don’t see that much for mid-managers, still heavy on new

professionals and senior like at NASPA. (Margaret T.)

We are just starting to examine chances to provide our level (mid-career)

with more deliberate coaching and mentoring for the skills we need.

(survey participant)

I would like to see more money and programs available to us that focus on

our growth and development as professionals (survey participant)

One survey participant offered a response in the spirit of what other participants

were expressing about professional development at mid-career. “It doesn’t, you (are)

here, now sink or swim if you want to keep going in this field, and we’ll watch to see if

you make it.”

Some distinction was also made about advancing within the field or advancing out

of the field.

We don’t do a good job of telling people how to move up or what you do

to move out. The goal of the field is to keep people but we also talk a lot

about personal attention really caring about the person but our field is not

115

like any other and I don’t think we do a very good job of helping people if

they say ‘hey this might not be for me’ and finding something else to do.

(Margaret T.)

Other participants echoed this sentiment,

The student affairs field needs to provide training in the area of career

advancement (or deciding whether to advance)…. A lot of professionals

stagnate at this stage because they don’t have professional development

opportunities to advance their careers. (survey participant)

In order to advance, everyone gives you the same message, ‘get a phd!’

What I do not think they tell you is what many individuals have to do in

order to successfully complete one. (survey participant)

The notion that to excel or ‘move up the ladder,’ one has to move to

another institution (when people can move up in the same or similar

company that is located in the same city). (survey participant).

Another part about being in a mid-career position is that in order for me to

advance, I will have to leave my current institution, uproot my family, and move

to another institution in another city. Those individuals in senior-level positions

will be in their institutions for another 10-15 years. …I’m in a catch-22 because

of my experience and skills. (survey participant)

While some participants still saw the value added by professional associations for

professional development at mid-career, many participants also looked to their

institutions for this support. In a prologue to Chapter Five, some participants believed the

institution and the past and present supervisor had a role in facilitating advancement at

116

mid-career. Some participants had positive experiences with current and former

supervisors who facilitated their professional development at mid-career. However, many

participants did not see this as intentional, but more as a function of their particular

situation. “I think honestly you have to get lucky, you have to get lucky with a couple of

things…gaining the right kind of experience…you also have to get lucky with having

appreciative and helpful supervisors” (Alice N.). Another interview participant

commented, “It all depends on how their former supervisor or institutions worked to

mentor the individuals rather than manage…the whole concept of teaching people how to

fish rather than just giving them the fish to feed for the day” (Sarah F.).

A survey participant believed that because of her supervisor’s reaction to

professional development her institution was also not involved. “…as my boss has

mentioned that she cannot prepare me for where I have to go next…” In talking with

other mid-career colleagues at different institutions, one interview participant believed

many of his colleagues were not getting the opportunities from their supervisors for

professional development that he was (George S.). One survey participant believed her

institution did not provide professional development because individuals were easily

replaceable, “I do not feel my institution cares if I advance in the field. It is mainly

concerned with the here and now. I’ve given them 5 years—I think they believe that we

can be replaced very easily.”

Institutional funding, enrollments, and stability were also cited by participants as

an encouraging or limiting factor in mid-career professional development. Participants

believed together these three factors had the most direct impact on the ability of

participants to attend institutes or conferences and increase their professional

117

development at mid-career. One survey participant connected this issue to attrition which

I discuss in Chapter Five, “That’s the problem…my institution does nothing to prepare

me to advance in the field. That’s why so many of my contemporaries are leaving the

field.” A final thought was offered by a survey participant about advancing and

professional development at their institution. “My institution does not help me at all in

advancing me in the field, except to give me more job responsibilities on top of what I

already have.”

Because mid-career is a time with increasing professional and personal

responsibilities, a few participants expressed some concern about having the ability and

time to work on professional development. While this issue was not discussed as much as

others it did heighten the awareness for some participants who felt that there was an

increasing lack of time and resources devoted towards their professional development.

Some participants felt if they did not create a conscious effort to take time for

professional development it could get lost in the everyday issues of their professional and

personal lives. One interview participant commented that perhaps it was the nature of the

profession that there was often not enough time to devote to professional development

kinds of activities.

I think we are so busy doing our jobs and because of the place at life you are (at).

I am so busy during the day I don’t have time to read professional journals and I

am not going to take time away from my family to do that (emphasis added)…the

nature of the profession in that there is not the time for those things…it is very

difficult to focus on your own professional development (Francis H.)

118

In this section participants discussed how their mid-career experience was

confused by feeling connected to two professional worlds, one entry-level and the other

more mid-career. This confusion was compounded by mid-career participants feeling

they were unable to advance beyond mid-career because the field and institutions do not

understand the mid-career experience and consequently are not or will not provide

adequate professional development. As they struggled with existing in two worlds,

participants also experienced a profession associated with high workloads and difficulties

in maintaining a professional and personal balance.

The more individuals considered advancing in their careers, the more the issue of

balancing professional and personal lives surfaced. Not surprisingly, many participants

from both groups discussed the workload and responsibilities many of them had that

often conflicted with their personal lives. For some it was with their families, while

others experienced it professionally outside of their current positions. Regardless of

where the unbalance occurred, participants were concerned with how to maintain an

appropriate work/life balance at mid-career. In the following section, I present participant

reactions to how difficult it can be to maintain a healthy professional and personal

balance, and how the mid-career experience impacts this even more.

The Convergence of Professional and Personal Lives at Mid-Career

According to participants, mid-career was an opportune time in their lives to have

a family or begin thinking of starting one. As both groups of participants discussed

support at mid-career, many commented on their families and how mid-career was a time

where changes in their professional lives were often mirrored by changes in their

personal lives. With 10 of the 15 interview participants indicating they had partners and

119

over half of them having children, I was also interested in how professionals who had

families or were thinking of starting a family were supported at mid-career. Survey

participants were not asked specific questions about the support at mid-career and

families but some did comment on it in their responses. The support many participants

discussed covered areas of support including supervisor, institutional, and the field of

student affairs which I detail more in Chapter Five.

With the majority of participants graduating from student affairs masters

programs, I also examined support and experiences of participants while in graduate

school in preparation for their first professional positions and into mid-career. Most

participants felt prepared for their first and second professional positions after completing

required graduate assistantships or internships. However, many still lamented the lack of

certain specific skills not taught or emphasized in most student affairs graduate programs.

In the following section, I examine the support mid-career participants with families

receive, and how prepared and supported participants felt after finishing their graduate

degree.

Families and Mid-Career

Many of the participants interviewed either had or were starting families at mid-

career. There were different opinions on how this affected participants at mid-career but

most agreed that mid-career was an important time for individuals to begin starting or

thinking of starting families. Some were concerned that even though the field expressed

support for individuals at mid-career who had families, the realities of how easily this

was accomplished were not always clear. In Roads Taken (2004) Marshall agreed,

concluding that the lack of research about women who are administrators and mothers,

120

was contributing to a climate of difficult decisions for women in student affairs who were

considering starting at family. Others felt that, much like the professional development

support, the issue was more institutional and supervisor specific. A number of

participants also expressed concern that because, for many, resources were shrinking and

workloads in the profession were increasing, without the support of the field, institutions,

and supervisors, mid-career was a difficult time to balance having a family and meeting

professional obligations.

Many of the participants, who were women, talked about the added difficulties

they faced in having families or thinking of starting a family. They said that they often

had to deal with feelings of guilt for leaving campus earlier than perhaps they used to

when they didn’t have children. “I was planning on having a child around Orientation and

it is perfect timing that I will not be having a baby around any big event. It definitely

impacted my life and decision of when to have a child” (Margaret T.). Some also felt

prejudice from other for being away on maternity leave, while others were bothered that

males in their divisions, who did not have families or were not the primary care taker,

would not consider issues like child care when scheduling meetings at particular times of

the day.

It is very frustrating sometimes because our work day begins at 9:00am

but frequently other people will organize meetings that start at 8:00am or

8:15am and it is generally a man. But when you have child care issues and

you don’t plan for your day to begin until 9:00am and are already staying

late and have maybe worked out with your spouse or partner to pick up

(the) child and all of the sudden you have an 8:15am (meeting) you can’t

121

say ‘I have child care issues’ because for that person they don’t have the

same issue…it really frustrates me (emphasis added), I feel there are still a

lot of assumptions placed by people of what the expectations are.

(Margaret T.)

Another participant also felt a disparity still existed between men and women in

the profession, especially at mid-career. ”Often men who want to devote to their families

are wonderful guys but women who are doing that are just doing their job” (Julie S.).

As in the earlier section about mid-career status versus entry-level positions, many agreed

that because they felt more comfortable in their position and had proven themselves

professionally they might occasionally skip the 8:15 am meeting or late night program.

However, feelings of guilt still registered for some participants when missing meetings or

programs they would have ordinarily attended.

A challenge for some female participants who had been away on maternity leave

or who had taken time away from their jobs to be with their families, was finding balance

between having a family now while still producing the same results on campus at work.

Some felt challenged to “re-identify” (Carrie P.) with their position almost as if their job

had changed entirely.

It was the hardest transition for me being able to feel good about working

when I am at work and when I leave at 5:00 going ‘oh you are leaving

now’ (emphasis added) or if I walk in at 8:10 am I still working my full

eight hours? (Carrie P.)

Another participant described feeling “shunned” (Francis H.) for having a family

outside of work. “I am pregnant right now…it concerns me about moving forward. I’ve

122

heard horror stories from colleagues about having a child or preparing to have a child and

they were unsupported …it worries me a lot” (Margaret T.)

The challenge of balancing a family with mid-career also affected how some

participants spent their “free” time during the work day. One example included how

lunch hours before having a family might have been spent reading professional journals

or contributing to professional associations, but now were times spent checking on their

children at daycare or getting a prescription filled. “I am still giving you (the institution)

the same amount of work as you’re producing. I just produce it on different terms

(emphasis added)” (Francis H.). Another participant with children commented, “I put in

my 40 hours but often find myself doing an hour or two from home just reading emails or

documents” (Bill M.). He also commented on noticing how other people he worked with

would not invite him to participate in programs after hours because he had a family and

he believed they assumed he could never participate because he was picking up his

children. “Sometimes I struggle with providing support to staff but striking good balance.

If they feel guilty because my wife and kids are at home and I am out at an event I just

want to be there to support them” (Bill M.). The balance between work and family was a

continuing theme throughout the discussion about mid-career and family.

The balance often sought between personal and professional lives was a frequent

discussion by participants. Many felt the field of student affairs was publicly encouraging

and supportive of this balance but in reality the practice was much less defined. A major

challenge for one survey participant was the “demanding hours, juggling personal and

professional demands” Another participant commented her career in student affairs

would suffer if you choose to start a family at mid-career,

123

I truly don’t want to be in student activities even though that is where my

career has taken me. I would like to have a more normal work schedule

but if I head in the direction that my career would take me that would not

change. I know with children I would not be able to balance that very well,

I would do a disservice to my career. (Alice N.)

Some felt the balance of being good at work and at home was not rewarded at

their institutions or in the field. One interview participant felt one difference between

mid-career and entry-level was the ability to discover a balance and be comfortable in

expressing it to supervisors and others in the field. “As a mid-career professional (you)

learn to really fight for and be honest for what you really need not only personally but

professionally as well” (Alice N.).

Others saw mid-career as a time to really think more about personal goals in

addition to professional goals. Feeling more established in their professional lives,

participants felt more energy to focus on their personal lives. One example given was a

more directive job search that included positions with a more eight to five work schedule.

“I never wanted an 8-5 schedule, but now I do and have one because I specifically

searched for it” (Nancy J.). Several other participants described recent job searches where

they concentrated on positions that included more flexibility for their personal lives and

families. ‘My children come first’ was a comment repeated by several participants with

families. Another interview participant also felt there was not as much support given to

women in the field who have families or are thinking about starting a family. “There is

really not as much understanding as there could be for women in the field who choose to

124

have children. I feel like I’m running all the time to do both and there’s times when that

makes me angry” (Kathy S.).

The balance between personal and professional lives was an ongoing process that

many participants felt was unevenly supported in the field and at various institutions.

Ultimately, many participants did feel that working in higher education and student

affairs was a positive experience when trying to balance both personal and professional

responsibilities. Some participants based career decisions on what they believe the field

offered in terms of long-term flexibility with having a family.

My husband and I had job offers in different locations on the same day

and what we decided was my career would drive that decision because at

the level I was at and the work tasks would allow me to move my family

life forward. It was a difficult decision for me but it allowed us to start a

family. (Carrie P.)

A survey participant thought “having a spouse working in student affairs and raising a

family” was an additional major challenge professionally.

In a reverse of what most participants discussed about the balance of work and

family, a participant who left a career in the private sector to work at a university

commented on the family-friendly environment in higher education. “I have to admit I

am a little jaded because when people complain about it here I have to say oh wake up

you have no idea, the private sector is much worse for families” (Joyce B.). This may

have been attributed to the fact that while most of the participants had considered

working in the private sector, none actually had. As participants discussed the impact of

having a family influenced their mid-career experience, other participants took a broader

125

view of their professional and personal lives and how the balance between the two is

sometimes difficult to achieve.

The Work/Life Balance at Mid-Career

The majority of the interview participants for this study had partners and/or

families. In their 2000 study of 1,293 mid-level administrators with a 10 campus

university system, Johnsrud, et al. (2000) found administrators’ perceptions of worklife

balance influenced worker morale. There were also some participants who either did not

have a family or partner. These participants also discussed professional and personal

balance in the field and how being single can impact that balance. Participants with

families and/or partners discussed how their professional lives changed to better

accommodate the changes in their personal lives. In a nod to what the future might hold

for participants wanting to advance in the field, Blimling (2000) found the SSAOs he

interviewed also lamented the loss of balance between their personal and professional

lives. Participants without partners or families expressed concerns about how their lives

often revolved around their professional lives which included feeling the expectation to

work extra hours and assume additional responsibilities then professionals with families.

Whether this was a perception or reality participants were often challenged by these

feelings.

When describing their work habits, many participants used the term “workaholic”

to describe their professional lives. Participants with families commented how this

description changed professionally once they got married or started a family. Some

sought positions that allowed the flexibility to raise a family, others looked to the

supervisor and department to assist in handling changes in their personal lives. Before

126

starting a family comments like “oh I’ll fill in that hole” (Slade L.) were echoed by

participants in handling sudden programmatic changes or added responsibilities in their

departments. After starting families, many commented on understanding the personal

sacrifices they would sometimes make working in the field but balancing that changing

expectations for themselves and their staffs. “There is some personal sacrifice…it’s

important to maintain that balance” (Slade L.)

You have to say ‘no’ more often which means that you choose whether

you go home as opposed to staying on campus-this can cause internalized

guilt or friction with other coworkers/supervisors who perceive that you

should do what they do (stay on campus). (survey participant)

This balance even proved elusive to participants who did not have partners or families.

Finding the professional and personal balance in life was sometimes difficult for

participants without partners or families. One participant was concerned the amount of

time he spent at work would sometimes not permit him to pursue other professional

interests that would help prepare him for a senior-level position.

That’s really beginning to become an area of concern for me, making sure

I am spending time outside of work to build my scholarly portfolio. My

professional portfolio will speak for itself …but getting that other side

which I think is becoming more and more important as people are looking

for SSAOs. (George S.)

Using the increased amount of professional responsibilities was also cited as a way to

occasionally put less focus on personal lives.

127

I guess (I) avoid a personal life in some regards. It’s an interesting balance

that I have to be very conscious of. …it’s easy for me to get wrapped up in

there and I forget to take care of myself in some regards so I need to be

more intentional about that. (Sarah F.)

While this was not unique to the participants without partners or families, they expressed

more concern about how much easier it is to lose the professional and personal balance.

Participants without partners or families generally agreed the field was supportive

of those who did have families. There was some concern about how taking personal time

away from campus was sometimes viewed differently for those without families. “I guess

expecting that the singletons take on more because of others having a life outside, I guess

you could say it is also a challenge” (Sarah F.). When asked if this feeling was entirely

real or self-imposed one participant agreed it was probably a combination of both. “I

think it is a combination. At the same time I know there is a greater expectation that I

step in rather than the person that has a daughter and wife to do things after hours” (Sarah

F.).

To combat losing balance between professional and personal lives, participants

without partners or families echoed similar statements made by other participants

concerning their current supervisors. Having supervisors who expressed clearly that

participants needed to find balance included things such as not coming in early the day

after a late evening program or taking time-off after peak work times on campus were

mentioned. Participants agreed supervisors who took an active role in helping them

balance their professional and personal lives was the most significant factor in alleviating

128

this issue. Both groups of interview participants had many issues to consider when

thinking of moving to another institution.

The balance between professional and personal lives often aspired to by student

affairs was frequently elusive to many participants in this study. In a time of decreasing

support for higher education and smaller budgets, mid-career participants found it

increasingly difficult to achieve the professional and personal balance professionals

believe is necessary and the field publicly supports. Often this balance began before

professionals even reached mid-career either in their first position in student affairs or for

many participants during their graduate programs. In the next section, I discuss how the

mid-career experience was influenced by participants’ graduate school experience.

The Master’s Degree and Mid-Career

For most of the participants, the path to mid-career in student affairs traveled

through a master’s program in some variation with a student affairs focus. A few

participants had master’s degrees in disciplines outside of student affairs, two had

doctorate degrees, and one participant began working in student affairs while working on

her master’s degree in student affairs. The literature (Wood, Winston, & Polkosnik, 1985;

Richmond & Sherman, 1991; Ward, 1995) discusses the importance of the master’s

program to retention and attrition in student affairs. These studies concentrated on new

professionals entering the field but suggested many of these individuals were ill-prepared

about professional field and career options (1991). Since many of the participants had

graduated from traditional masters programs in student affairs, in the following section I

detail participant experiences in their masters program and the professional preparation

they received for their career in student affairs and mid-career.

129

Nine of the 15 interview participants graduated from masters programs in student

affairs. Based on the information provided, 15 of the 19 completed survey participants

graduated from a traditional student affairs master’s program. One interview and two

survey participants completed graduate work in psychology but purposely sought

coursework and experience during their graduate training within student affairs. Another

interview participant, who did not have a master’s degree in student affairs, did complete

his doctoral work in higher education administration with an emphasis in student affairs.

Still another participant with a master’s in counseling chose to specialize in student

affairs coursework during her graduate program. Of the final three interview participants,

one has a master’s degree in communication studies, one has a master’s in mathematics,

and the final participant is currently working towards a master’s degree in management

and organizational development. The remaining two survey participants indicated they

had master’s degrees from programs other than student affairs.

Skills based programs. For the participants who graduated from a master’s

program in student affairs nearly everyone agreed they felt well-prepared initially as they

began their first position. This preparation tended to fall along two types of program

backgrounds: a skills-based approach or a theory-based emphasis. Both groups of

participants talked about how their master’s programs prepared them professionally and

which type of approach their graduate program emphasized.

In preparing students for professional work in student affairs, all of the interview

and most of the survey participants reported a requirement in their program for either an

internship or assistantship within student affairs or both. Among both groups of

participants, the majority reported having positive professional experiences in their

130

assistantships or internships. Most of the participants also reported at the time they

completed their masters programs in student affairs, their programs emphasized students

acquiring practical skills necessary for professional careers in the field. For many of the

survey and interview participants the more important part of their programs was the

practical experience they gained during the internships or assistantships. Comments

ranged from “pseudo work experience that served me well when I went out to look for a

job” (Frank B.), “it definitely prepared me for my first position” (Nancy J.), to “I felt very

prepared to step into a job because I had the knowledge background but I also had the

work experience” (Janet R). “I don’t think I could have been more prepared,” (survey

participant). “I had great preparation in (for) my first position” (survey participant).

These comments reflected the sentiment of participants who had a stronger skills

preparation in their master’s program.

A few other participants who were still required to hold an internship or

assistantship felt their programs were more theory based or, in one case, a balance of the

two. Survey participants were also asked how they could have been better prepared for

their first position in student affairs. While interview participants were not specifically

asked this question, responses from survey participants mirror the comments from the

interviews about needing more skills when entering the profession.

When asked what types of things would have better prepared participants for their

first position in student affairs, practical skills were mentioned by eight of the 19 survey

participants. This lack of professional development in specific skill areas was also

discussed by many interview participants. “More classes that were about actual skills,

rather than classes all about theory” and “there was no link of theory to practice, no

131

discussion about ‘the real student affairs world’ (purposeful preparation in practical

skills)” were examples of survey participant comments. Skills in supervision, budgets,

and dealing with campus politics were again the most popular responses given by survey

participants. Crisis management, assessment, and stronger link from theory to practice

were also mentioned by survey participants. “I would have liked to learn more about how

to handle the bad things (i.e., student death, etc.) that happen and how to manage a crisis”

(survey participant). Another survey participant commented on assessment, “a ‘non-

scary’ discussion and examination of assessment-what is it, what does it look like, etc.”

The discussion of practical skills by survey participants corresponds to the

comments made by interview participants about what skills or experiences they believed

would translate outside of student affairs and higher education. Managing people,

budgets, and supervision were the skills most mentioned by interview participants.

According to participants these same skills were also what they believed helped

distinguish them from entry-level. A few survey participants did comment on needing

additional experience with higher education theories and linking those to actual practice.

From these few participants, only one did not graduate from a traditional student affairs

graduate program.

Theory-based programs. For those participants who felt they graduated from a

more theory-based graduate program in student affairs, all still believed they earned

enough skills to use in their first professional positions. One participant, who graduated

from a counseling based program, believed the theories he studied have continued to

serve him, “for me the communication skills I learned and student development theory

and counseling theories helped me throughout my career.” (Bill M.). Another commented

132

on the theoretical perspective he gained during his program which he believed gave him a

“knowledge base” to draw from but also hindered him professionally.

The institution I chose first off, and I found this with a number of different

institutions out there, they really want you to come to work, they want you

to do the programs but they don’t want you to reinvent things, they don’t

want you to jumpstart anything, they want you to kind of maintain as well.

So what my grad program taught me to do was to go in and assess the

situation, find the theoretical elements and the research that can show you

a, b, and c and you adapt your program accordingly. That doesn’t work

necessarily in the real world… that can sometimes really challenge me.

(Slade L.)

Another participant believed her graduate program was a good mixture of theory

and skills. “They had a great way of combining not only all the theory you are supposed

to know…but they did a great job of combining that with the practical nature of things”

(Sarah F.). Among survey participants, some also commented on the presence of a strong

supervisor or mentor during graduate school who helped prepare them professionally.

While most participants felt well-prepared for their professional careers after their

graduate program, one had a different experience in her program and first position. She

believed any graduate program in student affairs should not prepare anyone for their first

position but instead address the issue of work/life balance for new professionals. “It

should focus more on what I believe to be the hazing ritual of the first three years of the

professional career where new professionals give their lives to the job and don’t keep

some of it for themselves” (Carrie P.). She expanded this idea into the mid-career

133

timeframe for field. “We cultivate overachievers so when you get to the mid-level you

are suddenly challenged with how do I try to cultivate my life while still create my

identity on campus” (Carrie P.). The idea of work/life balance at mid-career was

discussed by many other participants in an earlier section examining how the field

supports mid-career professionals. This participant closed her comments by offering

optimism for graduate programs in how they prepared their students through their

internships or assistantships. “My hope is those practical experiences in a master’s

program offer (or) allow entry level professionals to evaluate how they are continuing to

become a professional being. Their assistantship allowing them to watch Directors and

Associate Directors in action” (Carrie P.).

There was one participant whose experience was atypical for all the other

participants in the study. She was already working in student affairs before she began her

master’s program in student affairs. She believed her program was more skills–based

when she attended because most of the faculty in the program had a practitioners

background within the field and were retiring as they taught in the program (Kathy S.).

Even as their graduate programs and institutions differed, the majority of

participants graduating from traditional student affairs master’s programs felt well-

prepared to enter their first positions in the student affairs. Participants who described

their programs as more skills-based felt better prepared than their counterparts who

described their graduate experience with a theoretical foundation. Those who had a

different educational background sought out practical experience within student affairs at

their institutions. While the professional preparedness in graduate school served

participants well in their positions, it did not appear to extend beyond that timeframe into

134

mid-career. Finally, the culture of over-achievers that one participant saw the field

producing was seen as a hindrance to how professionals found a work/life balance

beginning in entry-level but more so after reaching mid-career.

Summary of Chapter Four

In this chapter, I have taken the responses of both survey or interview participants

and begun to chronicle the experiences of mid-career professionals in student affairs. I

started the chapter by discussing characteristics that participants believe the field and

their own experiences contribute towards the definition of mid-career. From this

definition of mid-career, I examined the ambiguous role that many participants face at

mid-career in having entry-level tasks combined with higher-level expectations. I

concluded the chapter with a look at how participants define and exist at mid-career and

how this is further complicated by the balance and influence of their professional and

personal lives. Having begun to dissect the mid-career experience in student affairs, I will

continue in Chapter Five chronicling the experiences of participants by examining how

the different types of professional development can often lead to a candid assessment of

their future in the field.

135

CHAPTER FIVE

Professional Satisfaction at Mid-Career in Student Affairs

How participants in this study viewed the period at mid-career depended on different

factors that influenced their professional and personal lives. In Chapter Four, I detailed

how the struggle participants face in defining who they are as mid-career professionals

places them in a unique and conflicting position not typically found with entry or senior-

level professionals. In Chapter Five, I will examine the impact of this struggle by

detailing how participants’ confusion at mid-career has been influenced by their feelings

regarding their professional development. Participants’ professional development

experience at mid-career, coupled with existing identity confusion came to symbolize

feelings of dissatisfaction at mid-career and for many it was a time in their careers to

seriously consider their professional futures. Quite simply, as my research indicates, if

mid-career professionals do not feel professionally satisfied for whatever reason, they

will consider leaving the field.

Professional and Personal Support at Mid-Career

Every participant, who either took a survey or did an interview in my study, also

participated in an institute geared towards mid-career professionals in student affairs.

Throughout the discussions with study participants about the mid-career experience, no

topic elicited as much emotion and thought as did the topic of professional development.

Many discussed their affiliations and connections with various professional associations

in the student affairs field, as well as the importance of their relationships with their

supervisors and institutions in developing professionally. Yet, for all of their participation

136

in professional associations and the emphasis placed on outside forces influencing

professional development, almost every participant commented on how poorly it was

being accomplished at mid-career. For participants, the existence of professional

development at mid-career was not a reality in their careers. Instead, it was viewed as a

perception that student affairs and institutions believed was benefiting mid-career

professionals.

The field supports professional development by sponsoring conferences and

institutes that include mid-career professionals. Supervisors believe professional

development happens either intentionally or indirectly because they supervise mid-career

professionals. The institutions provide funding and occasional professional development

opportunities on campus for all levels of professionals, which sometimes includes mid-

career individuals. However, after listening to mid-career professionals discuss where and

how professional development occurs, the reality appears much different from the current

perception offered from the field, supervisors, and institutions. In fact, the absence of

professional development had a negative impact on the mid-career period. .

If the field, supervisors, and institutions believe professional development occurs

at mid-career, yet participants cite the lack of professional development by any source as

a major obstacle at mid-career in student affairs, why is there such a discrepancy between

the two beliefs? And if professional development is not occurring to the extent

supervisors, institutions, and the field believes, then where is it happening and how?

Finally, if mid-career professionals do not believe professional development is occurring

to meet their needs, then does this influence the decision to remain in or leave the field?

While the interview and survey results do not completely answer these questions they do

137

provide some insight into what is occurring right now. Additionally, they provide specific

examples from the experiences of participants indicating how the lack of professional

development could affect their future as mid-career student professionals.

Both the surveys and in-depth interviews began to reveal a potentially important

issue for the future of the student affairs field, which was that of professional

development at mid-career. While participants also pointed to other issues that affected

their decision to remain or leave the field, professional development must be considered

equally as important as other factors to the issue of attrition. Many of the participants

cited mid-career as a time to assess career goals, personal commitments, and their future

in the field. If the lack of consistent professional development at mid-career was

considered by participants as a critical issue, then this issue, coupled with familiar issues

affecting attrition, such as salaries and campus politics (Evans, 1988; Hancock, 1988;

Lorden, 1998) had the potential to create a serious problem for the future professional

vitality of the field. The survey and interview data in this chapter construct an important

indication of where the future of the field might lead if the issue of professional

development at mid-career is not re-examined. Mid-career professionals in student affairs

are the backbone of the field, and a significant decrease in their numbers would create a

potential vacuum of talent in higher education.

I begin Chapter Five with a look at four different types of professional support

that participants discussed from the surveys and interviews. Supervisor and institutional

support were the two biggest sources of professional support for mid-career participants.

However, support from the supervisor was identified as the most important influence for

professionals at mid-career. I continue the chapter with comments from participants on

138

the importance of institutional professional support and how much it varies from

institution to institution. I then examine how participants viewed the responsibility of the

field in providing professional development for mid-career individuals. I end this section

on professional support with participant comments on the responsibility of individuals on

their own professional development and how it took shape for many of them. Because the

majority of both survey and interview participants were female, in the next section of the

chapter, I examine the experiences of women at mid-career. I also include comments

from a few participants of color and their experiences at mid-career.

In the second part of the chapter, I detail how participants felt about staying or

leaving student affairs while at mid-career. I include a discussion of how the skills and

experiences of mid-career professionals translate outside of student affairs and higher

education. I end the chapter with an important examination of the issue of retention in the

field of student affairs and how the mid-career period can be the most frequent time for

professionals to think about leaving the field. This includes frequent mention by

participants of themes covered in this and the previous chapter, such as professional

support, work/life balance, and feeling rooted in two worlds. Participants coupled the

discussion of retention with suggestions of how the field and institutions could keep mid-

career professionals engaged and retained in student affairs.

As student affairs professionals transition into a mid-career or mid-management

timeframe the support they require or seek out professionally often changes from their

time as a new professional. In the early 1980s, in her research on mid-level

administrators, Austin (1984) called for higher education to “improve opportunities for

professional growth.” According to study participants, professional support can come in

139

many different forms, involving different people, and be either directly or indirectly

related to current professional goals. How individuals get the support and from whom can

be as varied as the types of positions found in the student affairs field. However, one

thing was clear from the interviews; the support is necessary and essential to the

professional growth and satisfaction of mid-career individuals. For the interview

participants the most frequently cited area of support was with supervisors. In contrast,

supervisor support was not mentioned with the same frequency among survey

participants who tended to discuss the support coming more from the field and

institutions. In the following sections, I examine the different types of professional

support discussed by participants. Four particular areas of support are highlighted and

discussed: supervisor, institutional, the field of student affairs, and individual.

Additionally, emphasis was given to participants who identified as persons of color and

women in the field.

Supervisor Support and Mid-Career

No area of professional support among interview participants had more mention

and emphasis placed on its importance then that of the supervisor. The relationship was

also not bound by career period as participants cited its importance as new professionals

and when progressing to senior level student affairs positions. It was at times paired with

some of the other three areas of professional support mentioned but continued in a more

prominent role in the professional development of mid-career individuals. Simply put,

positive, strong, and encouraging support from a supervisor(s) was identified as a critical

step in the professional development at mid-career. Words like crucial, essential, and

140

vital were used to stress the importance of professional development support from a

supervisor.

Often the first influence of a supervisor came before mid-career when participants

were still in their first or second positions. Harned and Murphy (1998) advocated

strengthening the relationship of student affairs and institutions with new professionals

and supervisors to combat new professionals leaving the field. By developing individuals

even before they reach mid-career, supervisors assist in professional development early-

on and create a foundation that continues into other career periods. “I believe it is

incumbent of supervisors to be cultivating the entry and mid-level” “You keep good

people by allowing them to grow themselves.” (Carrie P.). “At the time (entry-level) I

had a very good supervisor who spent a lot of time mentoring me and helping me learn

more about my position as well as student affairs as a profession (survey participant).

This entry level growth from supervisors often translated into the mid-career place in

which many of the participants now reside. In her 1992 research, Komives suggested

mid-career professionals be mentored during this time to assist their professional

development. Once reaching mid-career the emphasis on support from supervisors took

on even greater importance as participants discussed how this had affected their

development.

As many participants cited the importance of supervisor support during mid-

career not everyone had that support currently and many saw it unevenly distributed

across the field. Either from personal experience or in talking with colleagues in the field,

many participants did not believe this was occurring. One interview participant

mentioned after talking to MMI (Mid-Managers Institute) participants he did not get the

141

sense it was occurring across the field (Slade L). Additionally, he believed if it was

happening then “it’s occurring coincidentally rather then by design” Another interview

participant talked about friends who are mid-managers in the field and are not given the

opportunity to grow and develop (George S.). A survey participant commented “Real

support would include supervisors having discussions with those that they supervise

about their career plans…supervisors would actually do what they could to get the

subordinate experiences that they need and want.” Most participants who commented on

supervisors echoed the sentiment that Joyce B. expressed about the role a supervisor

plays in an individual’s development “is an investment in the person and in the

organization.” Or simply put by Nancy J., “It really depends on who you have in your

corner.”

Reasons for why this might not occur were varied but in particular, some

commented they felt supervisors believed if professionals are at mid-career then they

should have a certain skill set (e.g., budgets, managing people, supervision) and

experience, and do not require any additional training or professional development.

Supervisors who were not interested in progressing professionally themselves were also

cited by many participants as a reason for the lack of support. “If a supervisor is not

comfortable in seeing the potential in someone and developing those resources for him or

her it can also hinder professional development.” (Nancy J.) Supervisors who are

involved professionally in the field also might be the ones who are taking an interest in

the development of mid-career individuals. Responses in how development might occur

were different but many agreed it should happen with the supervisor.

142

There were a number of suggestions given as to how supervisors might better

support mid-career professionals. One participant commented that supervisors should

simply build into the job responsibility the expectation that individuals should be

evaluated by their supervisor to see if they are meeting professional development

activities and goals (Francis H.). Most saw it as conversations that happened on a regular

basis to find out what is working and what they need. This expectation included

conversations about educational goals and professional development opportunities.

Sometimes it was as minor as presenting professional development opportunities that are

in the field to individuals and letting them choose how to respond. Or realizing potential

and pointing that out to individuals. All of these suggestions translated into better

preparing individuals professionally in their current position but many also saw it as

important to their next position, whether that was in or out of the field.

Many interview participants agreed that supervisors should be preparing mid-

career professionals for either moving up, moving out, or moving on. Even if someone

does not recognize what the next step is, supervisors should be preparing individuals to

better answer that question when the time arises. Supervisors who better prepare their

employees for their next step were seen as important and effective in the career

development of individuals, especially at mid-career. Finally, the support supervisors

providing also affects how current mid-career professionals work with the individuals

they supervise, who are the future mid-career and senior student affairs professionals.

I have learned from my best supervisors ever that as a younger

professional and mid-career professional if I am not preparing GAs

143

(graduate students) and younger professionals to move on beyond this I

am not doing them a service to our profession. (Alice N.)

It is them (supervisors) that really need to pay attention to what I really need to do

to prepare this person to move up or move out, or to get a degree, something to

that effect, realize the potential and point it out. (Nancy J.)

I truly feel a good supervisor is thinking where are you heading next, whether that

be at the same institution with added responsibilities or a new position, moving on

from the institution to do something better. (Alice N.)

These final three participant quotes are telling indications from this entire section.

If supervisors are not helping in the professional development of mid-career individuals

they are doing a disservice to the field. But are supervisors the only source for

professional development at mid-career? What role, if any, do institutions have in the

professional development of mid-career professionals? In the next section I examine

participant reactions to the role institutions have with professional development.

The Institution and Mid-Career

Professional support from supervisors generated the most discussion among

participant interviews. Most participants viewed supervisor support as an important piece

in their professional development at mid-career whether they intended to stay in mid-

career or move in to senior level positions within the field. Often in conjunction with

supervisor support but sometimes separately, participants also discussed support from

their respective institutions. While not always seen as crucial as supervisor support,

participants expected some professional support at mid-career to come from their

institutions either through a student affairs division or a university-wide program. Similar

144

research on faculty vitality also called on institutions to support the professional

development especially at mid-career (Baldwin & Blackburn, 1981, 1983; Karpiak,

1996). Participant responses to how their current or former institutions supported them

professionally at mid-career were varied. However, many participants felt professional

development was not happening at their institutions at a level benefiting them in their

mid-career position and beyond.

It was not clear from interview participants why some institutions provide

professionals support at mid-career and others do not but many agreed that institutions

should be providing some type of support. Among survey participants, many believed

institutions also had a role in providing professional support at mid-career. Some

commented that good institutions realize the need for professional development and

provide opportunities for staff. “If the institution is doing what it should be doing

(emphasis added) yes I think…there’s a responsibility for the institution to do it.” (Slade

L.). “The institution should expose me to different opportunities to expand my

role/skills…the institution I’m affiliated with does not do anything to support my growth

and development” (survey participant).

For participants, another important factor influencing their ability to engage in

professional development depended on if their institution even supported professional

development activities at all. “You are on your own at the institutional level here”

(survey participant). “My institution does not help me at all in advancing me in the field,

except to give me more job responsibilities on top of what I already have” (survey

participant). Some attributed professional development to current funding levels or the

leadership within the department or division, which was consistently mentioned by

145

survey and interview participants. Overall, many participants felt that institutions were

not providing professional development opportunities for staff including mid-career

individuals.

Of the institutions mentioned that were providing professional development

opportunities, many participants believed how much or how little they received also

depended on the type of institution for which one was currently working. Participants

from some large public campuses with large student affairs divisions had developed

intentional professional development programs for all staff including mid-career. One

institution has a position created by the Vice-President of Student Affairs who

specifically worked with staff development within the division. Another has a committee

established for professional development within the student affairs division. However, the

same participant commented that while they have a committee designed to create these

opportunities they are not allowed to engage in these activities during regular work hours.

She expressed concern that most individuals would not give up their personal time to

attend professional development activities (Francis H.). A survey participant discussed a

mid-level leadership development program offered at her institution for faculty, staff, and

administrators.

However, size of institution was not consistent with professional development

opportunities as other large institutions had no intentional professional development

programs in place. The apparent lack of consistency was considered part of the reason

why some campuses offered professional development opportunities while others did not.

One survey participant believed the professional support given to administrators should

equal what is provided for faculty. “This is difficult to do when faculty support is primary

146

and the resources are spread too thin. That support should mirror the support given to

faculty.” Perhaps large campuses were too big to create and implement effective

professional development programs and instead delegated that responsibility to individual

divisions or departments within the institution. This could further explain the importance

participants placed on supervisors who supported them professionally at mid-career.

With the many different types of institutions it was felt that higher education and

the field was too broad and varied for each institution to offer professional development

opportunities for everyone. “I believe that the support that the field could offer would be

in similar sized institutions providing newer experiences or add more depth to their org.

(organizational) charts” (survey participant). Additionally, some practitioners in the

student affairs field do not come from an academic background with a student affairs

emphasis which causes disparity among individuals. Understanding the different routes

participants took to reach mid-career in student affairs, some believed colleagues in their

own divisions or even outside the division should be reaching out to mid-career

professionals from around the institution to provide professional development

opportunities. This shared responsibility, as many participants viewed it, was consistent

with an intentional effort at professional development that involved institutions and

supervisors. This effort was sometimes modeled after other institutions or outside of

higher education.

Examining how institutions could create and implement professional development

opportunities for mid-career professionals, participants drew from their experience with

different models. Some looked internally and suggested looking at the student affairs

models with which they work with students within their own departments. The training

147

and development opportunities created for students by professional staff could also be

translated to other departments within the student affairs division or other areas within

the institution.

Taping into other departments either within a student affairs division or in the

greater institution, such as career centers or counseling centers was another suggestion.

Looking outside of higher education at private or corporate industry was also suggested.

Retreats and the multiple staffing opportunities the private sector sometimes provides

were suggested as a model for higher education. The suggestions varied as much as the

participants but almost all agreed professional development for everyone including mid-

career individuals was a multi-layered endeavor.

Ultimately, one of the most important parts of mid-career professional

development at institutions was attributed to working with students. More than one

participant commented on the impact their own professional development would not only

have on their development but also how they worked with students. Some saw the

opportunities extended to them as a “trickle down” (Bill M.) benefit to the students at

their institutions in providing better service and attention. With the addition of mid-career

professional development at each institution participants saw themselves as better

educators because they were practicing, learning, and doing new and different things (Bill

M.). “My philosophy is the more time and attention, training and development we

provide our staffs we serve our students better.” (Bill M.). The sentiment shared by Bill

M. speaks to the core of how professional development at all career timeframes,

especially mid-career, can benefit not only mid-career professionals but everyone around

them.

148

Even though it was not clear from participants why some institutions provided

professional support at mid-career and others did not, many participants discussed

examples of professional support at their institutions. Many of these institutions were

creating intentional professional development opportunities for mid-career professionals

often originating from a division or department. Ways to accomplish professional

development at mid-career drew from different sources, in and outside of higher

education. Often viewed as an individual benefit, professional development was also seen

to benefit the group of individuals student affairs professionals influence the most,

students. Even as supervisors and institutions were viewed as the largest influences on

professional development, participants did not discount the impact of the field and

individuals on their development.

The Individual and Student Affairs at Mid-Career

Though many participants discussed the importance of supervisor and

institutional support for professional development at mid-career, there were some who

believed the field of student affairs and individuals themselves also played a role in this

development. In some instances the level of support was multi-faceted depending on the

situation of the individual. While this area of questioning for interview participants did

not elicit the same strong responses as the discussion about supervisor and institutional

support, participants shared some important thoughts about this topic. One issue became

clear in the responses from both groups, regardless of their institution and/or position, the

importance of receiving support for professional development at mid-career did not

change as it related to individuals and the field of student affairs.

149

Since all of the survey and interview participants had attended one of two MMI

(Mid-Managers Institute) there was some level of belief in how the field of student affairs

can support individuals professionally. What was less clear was how much or how little

the support was benefiting individuals or how much of it was targeted to mid-career

professionals. Many participants felt it was more difficult to find professional

development opportunities for mid-career individuals than it was for entry-level or senior

professionals. “The student affairs field needs to provide training in the area of career

advancement (or deciding whether to advance). It seems that a lot of professionals

stagnate at this stage because they don’t have professional development opportunities to

advance their careers” (survey participant). Some participants felt what was currently

offered for professional development in the form of workshops or sessions at conferences

they had already attended or been part of. One interview participant commented there

was less out there (in the field) that met her needs. She also felt as she progressed in her

career her needs were more specialized (Julie S.). The issue of fewer professional

opportunities for mid-career compared to entry and senior-level practitioners was

frequently cited by participants.

Another interview participant also felt because of the type of field she was in

(student affairs) that the field must be part of the professional development but did

believe the field was as supportive with professional development needs as it could be

and that perhaps some of the professional statements need to be re-thought (Margaret T.).

“It (the student affairs field) would support more programs such as ACPA Mid-Level

Managers Institute and provide more resources (job search information, relocation info)

as well as they do for SSAO’s and entry level participants” (survey participant). Another

150

survey participant echoed this sentiment, “There is professional development at

conferences; however, most are aimed towards new and seasoned professionals.” Others

felt the support was there but was less formalized within the field and more personalized

with professionals talking to other professionals at different institutions.

The individual conversations that occurred between professionals in the field

often took place at conferences and institutes sponsored by professional associations.

Some participants felt more comfortable engaging in dialogue through individual

conversations compared to other types of support they had received. As is often the

situation at conferences there is ample opportunity to engage colleagues from similar

institutions or in similar positions. Several interview participants felt even at MMI they

gained more from the unscheduled and informal conversations with other colleagues than

the actual sessions offered. Survey participants mentioned informal interactions with

colleagues much less frequently during participant interviews.

For some participants the informal conversations among colleagues even

extended to the specific MMI they attended. One interview participant commented she

was not in the same personal situation as many MMI participants but she found in talking

with people who were helping sponsor the institute some common experiences arose, “It

was really nice to hear somebody could do it on the same kind of path that is not very

traditional.” (Nancy J.). Another felt even the larger professional associations like

NASPA were more conducive and almost supported the informal conversations that took

place at professional conferences and institutes. “I think it’s a question of anybody who

goes to NASPA and sits at a table and has a conversation there’s value there…but I think

it really is just focusing in on helping a person achieve their goals and the way you do

151

that is through personal conversations and revelation” (Slade L.). The support of the field

is present, if not in a formal setting such as a conference or institute, sometimes in the

ability to talk informally with colleagues about what happens in the field.

According to participants, things like engaging with colleagues, receiving support

from supervisors, or institutions all played a part in the professional development of mid-

career individuals. With this in mind, almost all participants commented on the individual

responsibility of professionals in the field of student affairs to also work towards their

own professional development, often in conjunction with other areas of support but

occasionally on their own. Many participants saw value in attending conferences,

institutes, talking with colleagues, or involving themselves professionally at their

institutions. Regardless of their professional situation, many participants felt the ultimate

responsibility lies with the individual to take the knowledge or skills gained and apply it

to their daily professional and personal lives.

Several participants discussed how opportunities had less value to them if they did

not use the newly acquired knowledge to improve their daily practice. They also felt

challenged sometimes in how to use the knowledge or skills they gained through

professional development. One interview participant commented that understanding how

to apply new ideas and skills learned at professional conferences for her own institution

was not always open and clear. She also felt unless the senior leadership in her division

supported a new idea it might be harder to implement on their campus. “Now that I think

about it at our level (mid-career) it is harder to get that new idea (across) unless the VP

(of student affairs) jumps on it as well” (Mary S.). A survey participant often saw senior-

level professionals in the field less concerned with development because of how the

152

advanced professionally. “Many of them (SSAOs) progressed through the ranks without

such support and perhaps may not see the need for it for others” (survey participant).

Other times it was a question of what skills or knowledge they need for the next position

or their own personal growth. This required participants to be more self-sufficient and

rely on themselves instead of their supervisor or institution.

In an ever increasing need to assume more individual responsibility for

professional development, participants expressed how much of a serious effort it was to

realize what skills and abilities they have now and what skills they need for the next

position.

I had (to) seek out those opportunities to see… to realize ‘ok these are the

skills I have what do I need to have, whether it be for the next position or

my personal growth’ it has to be a combination there in. (Sarah F.)

Another participant commented that while the responsibility falls on the

individual sometimes it is not clear how to proceed. “The ultimate responsibility falls on

the individual. (The) thing is they have to figure out how to do it” (Janet R.). Among

survey participants, some commented on the increasing need to fund their professional

development with personal funds. “Digging deep into my own pockets to attend a less

popular or well known meeting/conference is OK – but I wish someone else was helping

out…in terms of financing such opportunities” (survey participant). Individual

responsibility and financial assistance were not the only concerns for the participants. In

trying to expand what mid-career professionals learn from professional development,

there was a call to share that knowledge at their home institutions.

153

Several interview participants expressed that professional development also had

to be a continuous process that involved not only attending conferences or institutes once

a year but also then using that information. “Oh look where going to ACPA or NASPA

this year and we are done with our professional development…as long it (professional

development) is happening year round” (Janet R.). Regardless of how they pursued

professional development or what kind of support they received many participants

viewed it much as Bill M. and George S. did.

Definitely has to do with the individual because I could have all the

opportunities presented to me in the world but if I’m not willing to take on

the challenge of growing even being open to those opportunities, I won’t

benefit from them. (George S.)

I think as professionals we all have to have our own initiatives. We can’t

leave a grad program and just assume we will pick up the skills and

knowledge needed to sustain a career. There has to be some initiative on

our part to continue reading, to continue to set professional development

goals and we have taken some ownership of it. (Bill M.)

The idea of support for professional development is not an issue that mid-career

individuals rely on throughout their career. It becomes a combination of professional and

personal influences that involves individual desire to seek out and use those

opportunities; it also includes outside support from individuals, institutions, or

associations that are prominent in the lives of mid-career professionals. But what happens

when the professional development support is not present or does not meet the needs of

individuals? All the more identifiable sources of support were either non-existent or

154

inconsistent. Supervisors did not encourage or support development, institutions did not

develop resources, and the field was incompatible with mid-career needs. If it was left to

individuals to discover their own development and they were unclear of how to proceed

in their own professional development then the opportunities for career dissatisfaction

likely increase. This situation was compounded for participants who identified as either

women and/or people of color.

Women and People of Color at Mid-Career

Even though it was not a particular focus of the study, particular attention was

paid to how women and people of color were supported professionally and personally at

mid-career in student affairs. I explored how mid-career professionals in the field who

identified as women and/or persons of color felt about their current position, achieving

higher level positions, and professional support at mid-career. Because 11 of the 15

interview participants and 13 of the 19 completed survey participants were women,

emphasis in the section is placed on the responses of these participants. With only two of

the15 interview participants and five of the 19 completed survey participants identifying

themselves as people of color, I will discuss their reactions to mid-career support in less

detail understanding the limitation this has on the study. One common thread found in the

responses from most of the women and a few persons of color were perceived pressures

for both groups that were both internal and external. I will discuss this phenomenon in

greater detail later in the section.

Even with the demands placed on women in the field at mid-career many of the

participants felt women had made great strides in the field, including more women in

senior leadership positions and a greater ability to continue working in the field after

155

starting a family. Many of the women interviewed had children and did feel supported in

their current positions. Most attributed the support to their current supervisor who knew

how they performed and was comfortable in allowing a flexible schedule. However,

several women in that situation felt the reason their supervisor supported this

environment was they had already proved themselves capable in their position and were

not as concerned about getting the “job” done. However, women who had families or

were starting families expressed concern about an increasing number of women in senior

leadership positions who did not have families. It is interesting to note while

acknowledging the increase in senior-level women as a positive step, some participants

thought it also brought about a negative consequence.

The phenomenon of more women in senior leadership positions who had either no

children or adult children who no longer lived in the same household was perceived as a

negative influence on the balance between professional and personal lives. One

participant acknowledged the increasing number of women in leadership positions but

was struck by the number of these women who did not have children. “Women are

obtaining leadership positions in ways they did not maybe 30-40 years ago but I wonder

sometimes at what cost? …it seems to me the women in leadership positions (in student

affairs) don’t (have children) or have grown children.” (Julie S.). After attending an MMI

another participant commented on the number of female faculty who did not have

families.

They had fast-tracked themselves by moving jobs about every three years,

literally every three years, they were really skipping place to place. The

only people who were married were the men and the only people who had

156

kids were men, none of the women who were faculty were married or had

kids, they were senior practitioners. (Kathy S.)

One interview participant commented about working with two different vice-

presidents in student affairs at the same institution, the first who had no children and the

second who had two adult children who were not living at home. “There is really not as

much understanding there as there could be for women in the field who choose to have

children” (Kathy S.). She continued by sharing something her Vice-President said to her

during a candidate search at her institution. “At one point during the director search my

VP said to me she was like ‘you know having you have two kids and a husband who

commutes it is just too much.’ I thought, that is an interesting comment. What she meant

in her comment was it was too many responsibilities for me outside of work.” This

participant also suggested how the expectations on women are different from their male

counterparts in the field.

Some of the women in the study often felt in the middle because they were treated

differently from their male colleagues and supervisors. To one interview participant the

stereotypes of women as nurturing and caring individuals were still being perpetuated in

the field, “there is an expectation that women continue to give, not just with kids” (Julie

S.). Another interview participant saw a different stereotype reinforced with women who

were learning to be assertive as managers or supervisors. She felt many women do not

enter the field with solid management skills and begin gaining them at mid-career, but

they also get viewed as the “care takers for students” (Alice N.). Because many women in

student affairs are not given those skills early on in their career it becomes difficult to

“find that role without being called the “b” word or being looked at as the mean person

157

around the office” (Alice N.). Another interview participant took a more localized view

of how women were treated.

It is institutional dependant but I do find that the men I have worked with

or under, they tend to be very traditional and do not look at women as

capable…men in leadership positions that were either direct supervisors or

high up in the administrative level that I felt did not treat me as an equal.

(Nancy J.)

As many participants believed stereotypes for women still existed in the field,

participants of color also had similar feelings about their experiences as mid-career

professionals working in student affairs.

Participants of color working at predominately white institutions felt pressures

from being the only one or two individuals who were not white in their departments or

divisions. Interestingly, participants thought the pressures they felt about their situation

was both an internal and external pressure. One interview participant felt pressure as one

of only two persons of color in her department. “I know I have to work a little bit harder

to be seen as an equal at times and that could again be my own personal hang-ups” (Sarah

F.). Setting an example for other people of color was also mentioned by another

participant. “An internal or self-made pressure is my want to be an excellent example to

other black males…because I think all students benefit in seeing a black male with a

doctorate degree in a senior position at any institution” (George S.). While internal

pressure about being a person of color was felt by participants, there was more pressure

felt from their department, division, and institution.

158

External pressure seemed to extend externally for participants in other ways. One

participant believed people of color in student affairs have made great efforts to reduce

pressure but still felt that inside and outside the field people of color are still looked at

more closely then their white counterparts. As an African-American male the participant

felt an added pressure to succeed.

I think also externally, people of color, and I will say specifically men, are

looked at more intensely…under a greater degree of scrutiny than others,

that’s just part of everyday life for me as an African-American male, in the

academy and outside of the academy. (George S.)

The participant also recounted how this pressure was sometimes real for him as he

moved further in his career in student affairs. “I have experienced already here at this

institution there are some people who have a problem with me (emphasis added) and

there is no other basis for it besides me being a black male” (George S.). The internal and

external pressures did not deter any participant from achieving success but was an added

dimension to their mid-career position that other white participants did not face. A survey

participant also commented on how individuals outside of her division made her feel as

she needed to prove her ethnicity and skills to the institution.

My colleagues felt that I have the capability to be the director of an office,

but I feel that there are students and other administrators who feel that I’m

not “Black” enough to appeal or empathize with African-American

students on campus and with other students of color for that matter.

(survey participant)

159

According to participants, support at mid-career came from various areas and

individuals. Even as participants viewed support from supervisors and institutions as the

most critical to mid-career, many were not encouraged in how that was occurring.

Participants also saw support from the field as inconsistent and lacking for mid-career

professionals versus their entry and senior-level counterparts. Mid-career persons of color

and women in the study encountered additional difficulties receiving support not often

felt by their mid-career Caucasian and male counterparts. The discussion about support at

mid-career was not limited to professional affiliations and institutions. The issue of

professional support coupled with the balance of their personal lives often lead

participants to consider their future in the field. If participants were feeling confusion

about their mid-career identity and the professional development support was inadequate

at mid-career, these issues combined to create an unsatisfactory experience for mid-career

professionals. And as many participants had already noted, mid-career was a period that

many considered an appropriate time to begin thinking about their professional future.

Why Student Affairs Professionals Stay or Leave, and How to Keep Them

Why was mid-career a time for many participants to evaluate their futures in

student affairs? Because many participants had to combat losing balance between

professional and personal lives, so often a concern for student affairs professionals at any

career timeframe. This evaluation process affected both participants with or without

partners or families and crossed gender lines. When asked what would alleviate this

pressure, the one unifying agreement among participants on what or whom had the

biggest impact on finding and maintaining this balance was with their supervisors. This

more then any other issue involving attrition and retention in the field had the greatest

160

influence on participant satisfaction. The supervisor/mid-career relationship appeared to

be the single best way to combat attrition and the worst possible issue affecting retention.

The supervisor/mid-career relationship included having supervisors who

expressed clearly that participants needed to find balance, for example by not coming in

early the day after a late evening program or taking time-off after peak work times on

campus. Participants agreed supervisors who took an active role in helping them balance

their professional and personal lives were the most significant factor in alleviating this

issue. Interview participants with families had many issues to consider when thinking of

moving to another institution. The pressures of balancing professional and personal lives

at mid-career, the occasional lack of adequate professional support, and push to advance

into senior-level positions often lead participants not to only re-evaluate their careers but

also consider leaving the field of student affairs entirely. In the next several sections, I

examine how these pressures felt by participants and their responses affect the important

issues of attrition and retention in student affairs.

Attrition in Student Affairs at Mid-Career

As many participants discussed in previous sections, mid-career was a time to

evaluate their professional and personal lives. Twenty-five years ago, Arnold (1982)

advocated further study of mid-career professionals in student affairs because it was a

time of building employment dissatisfaction, with many participants in this study

expressing similar feelings. Many participants reached mid-career and started families,

while others started doctoral programs. Some participants also viewed this time as an

opportunity to consider their career path and whether or not it meant continuing to work

in the same functional area or in the field. Mid-career was an important time for

161

participants to begin thinking about or even making important decisions that could impact

the future of the field. In this section, I present responses from participants of both groups

about their feelings of leaving or staying in the field at mid-career. I also examine the

responses of participants surrounding being at the place called “mid-career” and how this

important time in their professional lives is often filled with feelings of excitement,

anxiety, hope, and confusion about what the next phase of their lives might hold.

After talking about leaving or staying in the field at mid-career many participants

had considered it since reaching mid-career but among this small sample most were

content to remain in student affairs. Rosser (2004) found among 4000 mid-level

administrators, the higher the mid-level leaders’ satisfaction, the less likelihood of them

leaving the field. There more of the interview participants who stated unequivocally they

would never leave the field compared to those who stated they had considered leaving the

field. The survey participants were more unbalanced in their response to leaving the field.

Seventeen of the 23 survey participants or 75% indicated they had thought about leaving

the field of student affairs entirely and many of the 17 considered leaving in just the last

year alone. As not all participants expressed a desire to leave, there were also some

participants who discussed why they would not leave the field.

Participants who discussed never leaving the field used phrases like “I am pretty

rooted in the field” (Slade L.), “I have never thought about it, I will do this forever”

(Carrie P), “that is what I am drawn to and passionate about” (Margaret T.), or “I’m good

at what I do and it feels good to have an impact” (survey participant). However, even

those participants who offered a few reasons why they might consider leaving the field,

ultimately made comments like “I guess there could be some family or other

162

circumstances that could force me out but I plan to be here” (Bill M.) or “That’s (leaving

the field) really hard because I don’t know that I would” (Slade L.). Among interview

participants who discussed leaving the field, most had no immediate plans to leave the

field at any point in the near future. While this was good news for the profession, among

those same participants there were some intriguing reasons discussed that would make

the decision to leave the field an easier one.

The participants who considered leaving the field entirely discussed a familiar

pattern in why they would leave: issues of campus politics and low salaries. Even as

participants agreed getting increased compensation did not factor heavily into their

decision to enter the field, most still expressed concern that current salaries were not

adequate for the amount of work produced. Austin (1985) studied different categories to

determine job satisfaction of 260 mid-level administrators. Among other indications,

Austin found extrinsic characteristics such as salary level had an impact on job

satisfaction. However, this seem to be contradicted by Rosser’s (2004) study, which

found mid-level leaders who were paid higher salaries had a lower level of morale. In

support of Austin’s research from 20 years prior, salaries at mid-career were still

considered an important and influential issue for many participants.

Participants often cited anecdotal data from the private sector or informal

discussions with friends outside of higher education when discussing how much less

student affairs professionals were earning. One interview participant even cited research

data that reported how student affairs professionals are “horrendously paid” (Julie S.).

While most interview participants did not comment as strongly about feeling underpaid,

it was an issue that still resonated with participants even at mid-career. When discussing

163

challenges in the field and leaving the field entirely, 10 of the 19 completed survey

participants listed salaries and compensation as one of the biggest reasons impacting that

decision. One survey participant commented, “Poor compensation for increased

responsibilities or hours.” Another survey participant cited how the lower compensation

affects her personally, “I just had a 2nd child and am having a hard time paying for

daycare and a mortgage on a student affairs salary.” Finally, one survey participant also

compared her compensation to other positions within her own department on a more local

basis. “There is a HUGE salary gap between me and the next position higher. I do not

feel respected in my current position.”

The perception of lower salaries in the field did generate some discussion among

all participants but the issue of campus or institutional politics also seemed to generate

similar responses from participants. Many interview participants felt one of the reasons

they were unsure of or not interested in advancing to senior-level positions was because

of the political climate at some institutions. Among survey participants, campus or

institutional politics was also a popular response for a reason to leave the field although it

was not as popular as the issue of compensation. Advancing to the SSAO position was

viewed negatively because of the amount of time this position would be involved in with

campus politics. Comments such as “I was tired of playing politics, worn out from the

politics” (Janet R.) or “I definitely don’t want to be a VP or Dean…they deal with a lot of

politics” (Nancy J.) were examples used by interview participants. Some participants

were concerned about their experiences with campus politics at multiple locations and

how that impacted their feelings of staying the field. “If I was in multiple institutions

where that was the case that would push me away from the field” (Janet R.). In what

164

many outside of higher education consider an obstructionist issue facing institutions,

participants were no more positive about dealing with the issue of campus politics.

In all the responses from participants about campus politics no one offered any

positive responses to working within the political structure. “We talk a lot about being

caring people but we get caught up in what the institution wants and what the politics

dictate that you forget about the people involved and to take care of them” (Nancy J.).

Among survey participants who commented on campus politics everyone viewed it

negatively. One survey participant commented on how it affects her ability to try new

things on campus. “My perspective within the unit is appreciated but I must be more

political with in the organization to have my voice heard.” Another survey participant

was facing similar challenges serving in an interim position, “with every month I’m in

my interim position, I’m becoming more and more tired of the politics and the ridiculous

obstacles that are preventing me from conducting my job effectively.”

Even as many participants were interested in advancing to senior-level positions

the issue of working with campus politics was always referred to in a negative manner.

“The politics of my position has gotten out of hand and I believe that my superiors don’t

know and don’t care to assist me in navigating successfully through the sea of

bureaucracy” (survey participant). Salaries and campus politics were the two most

common responses for why participants would leave the field but they were not the only

issues discussed.

Money and politics dominated the responses among participants for reasons to

leave the field. Other responses, such as becoming a faculty member, college president,

lack of professional support/development, and family commitments were mentioned by

165

participants. A survey participant commented on not spending as much time with her

family.

I get a lot of the “crap” that no one else will do, and much of that involves

being on campus in the evening and weekends. It would not be so bad

except that no one else has to be here, and I am missing out on things my

family is doing.

Participants who talked about becoming a faculty member had already made that choice

before moving into mid-career.

I am not going pursue my PhD in higher education, I’m instead going to

be working at management which essentially means I am leaving the field.

I don’t see myself as a student affairs practitioner, I feel more comfortable

in the world of management and organizational behaviors. I find research

more attractive but I don’t have time in my current job. I will be one of

the greatest friends to student affairs as a faculty member (emphasis

added). (Alice N.)

Receiving inadequate support in their current positions was mentioned by a few

participants and was similar to the discussion about professional and career development

and the critical role supervisors had in supporting it. Another area of concern for some

participants as they advance in the field was the possibility of fewer senior-level positions

available.

Supported by research which suggests there will be fewer senior student affairs

officer positions available in the future (Harder, 1983), both groups of participants were

also asked if a fewer number of senior-level positions in student affairs would impact

166

their decision to remain in the field. Less then half of the survey participants agreed that

it would impact their decision while a much smaller proportion of interview participants,

four out of 15, expressed concern about fewer senior-level positions. One survey

participant tied it directly to her desire to remain in the field. “Why would I want to stick

around when I know that my chances of making it are even slimmer? I have to be

realistic…I’m already at a disadvantage in the hiring process. I am a white female that

comes with children.” Another survey participant was more philosophical about fewer

numbers of senior-level positions. “I feel that my generation of student affairs

professionals will never see that day when we are considered senior level because those

that are at the senior level are still young (they’re not old as dirt).” The idea of fewer

senior-level positions available for a much larger group of mid-career professionals was

in contrast to the implicit push by the field for mid-career individuals to advance.

An interview participant commented on how the expectation of the field often

pressures individuals into advancing, “We talk about pushing people forward because of

what you think they should do rather then meeting them at their level and figure out what

they want and how letting them choose” (Slade L.). This discussion was in contrast to the

information in Chapter Four where participants were concerned about the expectation of

the field to advance into senior-level positions. However, these sentiments were

expressed by a minority of the both groups of participants.

Reinforcing the idea that participants were not affected by fewer senior-level

positions, many participants were content to work in mid-career or mid-level positions

for the remainder of their careers or had no desire to advance into senior-level positions.

Interview participants who considered leaving the field also discussed how their

167

professional experience within student affairs would translate outside of the field and

higher education. Student affairs practitioners often find themselves working with

multiple areas and can develop skills that are highly transferable outside of the field and

higher education. From managing people to working with budgets, mid-career

professionals have a career path that lends itself to pursuing positions outside the field.

How the Experience of Student Affairs Translates Beyond the Field From the previous section, where participants discussed thoughts of leaving the

student affairs field, some of the same participants also discussed the translation of their

current experience outside of student affairs. Lorden (1998) concluded mid-career

professionals often leave student affairs to pursue attractive career opportunities outside

the field. Most who talked about this issue felt very positively about the translation of

their experiences because they had worked in more than one functional area within

student affairs. In considering leaving the field some had already thought about how their

skills could be marketable outside of not only student affairs but also higher education.

Research has suggested many of the skills student affairs professionals possess are highly

transferable outside of higher education (Carpenter, Guido-DiBrito, & Kelly, 1987; Barr,

1990). A few participants had very specialized training (counseling), and their skills had

some more obvious applications outside of higher education.

Participant responses about the types of fields they could work in outside of

student affairs were linked to two types of careers; either working for other non-profits

like teaching, or working in a corporate setting in management or training and

development. In the following section, I present how participants viewed their current

skills and the translation of those skills outside of student affairs and higher education.

168

Of the participants who responded to the question of how their skills translated

outside of student affairs and higher education, all felt they had built marketable skills

that could be used outside the field. Because all participants were at mid-career and many

were working with budgets, supervision, and staff development these skills were viewed

as highly marketable outside of the field. Many considered their current positions as more

general in nature which included getting a wide breadth of knowledge and experience,

and participants saw this benefiting them not only outside of the field but also higher

education. “I have a generalist position which means again I am not specialized… I think

they (skills) would translate very well because the things that I do even though we are in

a higher education institution I could do in another field” (George S.). This response was

also echoed by other participants. The idea of working in a more generalist position

allowed many of the participants to work with budgets, supervision, and staff

development on a regular basis.

The supervision of staff or managing people, whether it was professional staff or

students, was discussed by many participants as the most transferable skill outside the

field. Interestingly, the response also had some participants torn because while they

believed the skill would translate well outside of the field, it was also one of their least

enjoyable aspects of their positions. Regardless, the experience in managing people and

the corresponding interpersonal communications was seen as very important for working

outside of student affairs and higher education.

I think that the level of delicate interpersonal relations that we ask of

people in student affairs would be more then adequate to manage people in

169

other arenas. I think we really do ask for a very high level of skill in

interacting with people. (Kathy S.)

Another participant believed it was a large component of his current position, “Managing

people which is big…huge thing” (George S). The skill of managing budgets was also

discussed as a transferable skill because participants felt budgets and managing resources

were in almost every field and could be viewed in different ways.

As part of their current and former positions many participants worked with

budgeting and resource allocation. This skill set is often associated less with entry-level

professionals and more in mid-career and senior-level positions. In addition to managing

people, participants felt managing budgets and resources were skills that translated

outside of the field and higher education because the concepts did not change even if the

organization did. “As you move up budgets are budgets, if you know how to talk money

and you know how to manage money you can use that in all sorts of ways” (Kathy S).

“The transferability of those skills like multitasking, budgets…this is probably a reason

why some folks choose to leave the profession” (Frank B.). “I could manage budgets,

processes.” (Janet R.) Managing money and people were the most universal responses

given by participants for transferable skills outside of student affairs and higher

education. However, participants also discussed their experience in training and

development, and staff selection as transferable outside of the field especially in a

corporate setting.

Participants who had worked with staff either supervising them directly or

indirectly felt the training and development aspects of their positions prepared them to

work outside of the field. Some also viewed this as piece that could be coupled with

170

consulting or corporate training. “I think I’ve been fortunate, I say that because I think I

have a lot of experience in selection, recruitment, and training and development so I think

that could translate well into human resources and other areas” (Sarah F.). “When you

think about all the jobs available now in corporate training, consultation-lots of folks in

student affairs could market themselves for those positions” (Julie S.). One participant

offered that because the field of student affairs was becoming more like the business

world the application of these skills was even more transferable. “We seem to (be)

becoming… similar to the business world with accountability and I see the business

world taking more of the leadership development…various pieces come into play” (Sarah

F.). The link between certain skill sets gained at mid-career in student affairs into a

corporate setting was not always as clear as with other fields. Experience in teaching and

non-profits seemed a more natural connection for some mid-career participants.

A few participants who talked about transferable skills outside of student affairs

and higher education had backgrounds in teaching or had taught classes while working in

student affairs. This seemed a more natural fit to participants who talked about a teaching

background and how they could instruct again outside of the field. Another interview

participant who was active in her local church thought the skills of student affairs

practitioners could also translate into other non-profit organization outside of higher

education. Finally, one interview participant who had a counseling background but

worked in student affairs believed the experience working with people could translate

outside of the field and higher education. With her background she was also able to teach

at a college level or work in private practice.

171

All of the participants who discussed working outside of student affairs and

higher education expressed no hesitation in how their skills and experiences could be

translatable. Some commented because of the varied nature of the profession they felt

well-prepared to begin working in another field regardless of the industry. One

participant described this idea best when she said “I think this is probably one of the most

diverse areas in order to prepare someone to do a variety of things outside of the

university environment” (Francis H.). In the previous sections, I presented candid

responses from participants about the difficulties they face at mid-career coupled with

issues of low salaries, high workloads, and work/life balance. Familiar career stresses

combined with a belief that mid-career is a time to gain valuable and transferable skill

sets creates an increased concern about the retention of mid-career professionals. For

many participants, their frustration with mid-career in student affairs translated into a

belief that their current skills would position them well to pursue career opportunities

outside of student affairs and higher education. However, even faced with difficult

professional and personal issues, participants talked as much about why they stay in the

field after reaching mid-career as they did about leaving.

Retention in Student Affairs at Mid-Career

The reasons given by participants for staying in the field of student affairs

covered some familiar themes for student affairs and higher education. Participants

discussed their work and the impact it often had on students’ lives. Others commented on

the professional and personal benefits available to them either at their institution or in

general throughout higher education. Some enjoyed the changes in the field and higher

education that created opportunities to try different things in their professional careers.

172

Again relating back to the support of supervisors at mid-career, a few participants even

discussed current leadership at their institution or in student affairs as a reason to remain

in the field. Even as the reasons for staying differed among participants, they viewed

mid-career as a time when many positive things were also happening in their professional

and personal lives. In the following section, I discuss reasons participants offered for

wanting to remain in the field of student affairs after reaching mid-career.

Not surprising to me as someone who also works with students at a university, the

two most cited reasons for staying the field were working with students, and the benefits

of working in student affairs and/or higher education. Many participants cited working

with students as a major factor for entering the field and most still found this to be a

rewarding and engaging aspect of their professional lives. Repeatedly participants who

talked about working with students used words like “impact,” “interactions,”

“rewarding,” and “passionate” to describe their feelings when working with students. “It

would be because of the students and the opportunities to have those interactions”

Margaret T.). “I think probably number one (reason) are the students and the fact that

we…really have an impact on shaping the lives of people. So I think the students and the

work that we do really keeps us here” (George S.). One survey participant stated it very

simply, “I LOVE working with students.”

Relating back to an earlier section about advancement in the field, there were

similar responses to why some participants had no desire to advance into senior-level

positions. A fear of losing the daily and strong connections with students was the most

frequent reason for not wanting to advance beyond mid-career and staying in the field.

Even as participants also recounted difficulties working with students, many believed the

173

positive connection they had working with students was an important aspect of their

professional lives. “The one honest truth in all of this is I still love the students. I still

really get a kick out of working with them.” (Kathy S.) “Students have a vibrancy, an

optimism and a sense of being engaged in something important” (survey participant).

This sentiment was echoed in spirit by many participants when asked about working with

students.

Participants who talked positively about working with students also commented

on other internally rewarding aspects that impacted their professional lives including

working with other positive colleagues, making a difference, and sometimes affecting

change in the world. Some participants felt the ability to work with other like-minded

individuals in the field was another contributing factor towards their positive experience

at mid-career and wanting to remain in the field.

I think (to) have some good colleagues really gets people wanting to stay. (Sarah

F.)

In student affairs you have amazing people you work with overall in

comparison to my friends in other fields, you get to work with much

cooler people who are much more caring and understanding, who

generally want to know about you versus other fields. (Margaret T.)

Working in a student affairs division affords the professional with a

readily available group of colleagues who are also bright, verbal, usually

interesting people.” (survey participant)

These comments synthesized much of what participants discussed about the

impact of working with other individuals in student affairs.

174

Continuing to make a difference was also cited as a reason to stay, “For me it’s

because I make a difference …when I realize that I’m not making a difference in my job

that’s the day I’ll walk away” (Slade L.). Another participant talked about how her

partner looked at what she did, “My husband says you know I just go to work and I build

things, you go to work and you build people” (Janet R.). Others found the university

environment as a whole more supportive and flexible, from such benefits as vacation

schedules to personal support. While recognizing that salaries in student affairs are

sometimes lower than in other fields, participants viewed the larger benefits of working

in student affairs and higher education as a positive factor for remaining in the field. For

one participant it was free housing while working in residence life, for a few others it was

flexible work schedules, sick and vacation time, and family friendly environments that

also impacted their decisions to remain in the field. Only one survey participant

commented on a benefit to working in higher education and the ability to work towards

her doctorate. There were few participants who also commented on the supervisor

support or the leadership within the division as positive influences on their decision to

remain in the field. Again, these comments mirror earlier sections, which examine the

supervisor’s impact on the professional and career development of mid-career

professionals in student affairs.

The support of supervisors or divisional leadership was not cited as often as other

reasons for remaining in the field, but its importance was mentioned by a few participants

and supports earlier parts of the research stressing the importance of this occurring for

mid-career individuals. Participants felt supervisors and SSAOs should be concerned

about their staffs, provide positive support, and work to combat issues like burnout. “It’s

175

an obligation on SSAO(s) that burnout does not happen” (Frank B.). “Burnout becomes a

big issue because of not paying attention to staff and getting bored” (Nancy J.).

Participants looked to supervisors and senior leadership as having a direct impact on

retaining individuals in the field. “It does go back to hopefully having some good

supervisors that really value these folks and provide encouragement...definitely putting us

into a positive drive to realize what our worth is” (Sarah F.). The importance of

supervisors and senior leadership in professional and career development was frequently

commented on by participants in this and other sections throughout this research.

The decision to leave or remain in the field was often complicated by professional

and personal decisions. Some familiar stresses were discussed by participants for leaving

the field such as low salaries and campus politics. However, there were also some

familiar benefits cited by participants for remaining the field like interactions with

students and colleagues, intrinsic value, and generous personnel policies. Just as the

reasons why individuals enter the field can be very personal, the reasons for leaving or

remaining were often as personal. Individuals sometimes make those decisions as simply

as how one participant phrased it “I think people just make it work, they’re here because

they want to be here” (Francis H.). In making it “work” and getting mid-career

professionals to remain tied to the field, I asked participants to discuss how the profession

and institutions could enhance their professional connection and ultimately support

retention.

As participants answered questions about leaving the field, the translation of their

skills outside of the field, and why they remain in the field, they also discussed strategies

to counter individuals leaving the field at mid-career. In a previous section, I presented

176

participant reactions to leaving the field including not surprisingly many looking for

higher salaries. Because research shows the two most cited reasons why individuals leave

the field are higher salaries and professional burnout (Bender, 1980; Burns, 1982; Evans,

1988), I asked interview participants to respond with strategies to counter attrition

without specifically discussing those two issues. Participant answers to the question of

combating attrition were varied and sometimes drew on personal experience. However,

most answers could be grouped around giving individuals more professional

opportunities to counter the negative impacts of lower salaries, and professional burnout.

A few of the participant responses also centered on personal issues that affected

individuals outside of their professional lives. Unfortunately for some participants, they

believed whatever student affairs or higher education created to counter the issue of

attrition there was no one way to counter at the situation because every individual had

different reasons for why they might leave. In this section, I detail participant responses

about how the field and/or higher education could combat the issue of attrition in student

affairs.

The issue of attrition in student affairs has been a recognized concern in the

literature for the last 25 years (Bender, 1980; Bossert, 1982; Burns, 1982; Evans, 1988;

Wiggers, Forney, & Wallace-Shutzman, 1982). The same literature has discussed

different reasons for why this occurs and what could be done to combat the issue. The

literature has also examined when attrition most occurs, citing mid-career as a time of

higher probability because of the changes happening to professionals during that period.

Since all of the participants for this research identified themselves at mid-career and

177

many have held several different positions in the student affairs they offered different

strategies for how the field could best counter the issue of attrition.

Perhaps the most cited method for combating attrition offered by participants was

through different opportunities made available to mid-career professionals. The

opportunities mentioned included professional development, additional or cross-training,

and advancement. Several participants thought these opportunities would allow

individuals to grow professionally and personally even if it did not mean advancing

beyond mid-career positions.

As a lot of time people burn out because they’ve been doing the same

thing for so long, even in the same position you could be given great

opportunities to grow in that position. (George S.)

They are not challenged or they feel if they have mastered their jobs and are not

looking to advance or assume new responsibilities. People struggle with new

identity there as well. (Bill M.)

Allowing somebody to develop a new set of expertise that would serve the

center/department but helped the individual feel like they are growing. (Julie S.)

Often the opportunities participants discussed for growth involved professional

development but some felt just providing that option was not enough.

Some participants talked about professional development opportunities to combat

attrition but some also believed supervisors and departments were not challenging those

individuals engaged in professional development to share their experiences. One

interview participant felt even if more resources are made available for professional

development and training the expectation should also include presenting that information

178

to colleagues at an institution. “I think sometimes supervisors send people to conferences

and don’t ask them what they learned, there needs to be more accountability, they are not

challenged by forcing them to analyze and reflect” (Frank B.). “Getting people to do

workshops about what they do it helps them understand that what they do is important

and valuable.” (Mary S.)

The continuation and sometimes increase of resource allocation for professional

development such as conferences and institutes was also a mentioned frequently by

participants. This included more specialized or targeted opportunities for specific areas or

career aspects of the field. “I think they (student affairs) are starting to do more like

offering special institutes and things to revitalize people, having more conferences that

are specific to certain areas” (Margaret T.). “There are other ways to compensate people

such as funding specialized professional development…” (Julie S.). Some participants

believed one kind of specialized training could include the ability to work in different

areas or perform functions not normally attached to their regular position.

The use of cross-training was brought up by several participants as a way to

prevent attrition by allowing individuals to learn new skills and grow professionally

without having to leave their current institution. A few participants currently had this

option available within their division and worked with colleagues who had taken

advantage of the opportunity.

Cross-training, other workshops, or activities that gets people out of the

office doing other stuff or maybe just changing what they do. At my

institution we do cross training… (Mary S.)

179

Even with the director of financial aid we know that eventually that she

wants to move outside of financial aid to move up to another position. (It)

is giving her opportunities outside of financial aid that will help build her

experiences and her resume which could involve even things like serving

on judicial boards. (George S.)

There were variations on the idea of cross-training. One participant worked at an

institution where the Vice-President of Student Affair’s office created a professional

internship within the division.

Our VP’s office created as a professional internship to encourage

specifically minority staff to try out the vice-presidential administrative

kind of role. One staff member for one semester at a time to work daily in

the VP’s office to really see what is going on. (Nancy J.)

Not as many participants had experience with cross-training but those who did thought it

a very beneficial counter to attrition within the field. For some participants, the

opportunity to just talk with other colleagues instead of working with them was a strategy

to consider in combating attrition.

A few participants talked about the ability to network with colleagues either at

conferences, at their institutions, or on the same research as a strategy to keep people

engaged and help combat attrition. One participant saw this as an extension of

professional development opportunities which helped with feelings of burnout, “for me

the opportunity to… talk with colleagues across the country who share the same concerns

and can vent and share solutions together” (Julie S.). Another took this one step further

and viewed her interactions as a chance to talk with mentors, “the strongest thing for me

180

has been upper-level, or more senior level people at other institutions that I can call and

say this what I’m facing and I am dealing with and they can help put it in perspective and

navigate” (Janet R.). These were more individual strategies to combat attrition and

remain professionally engaged which is how some participants viewed the issue of

countering attrition in the field.

The choices that some participants made for their own professional engagement

were related to their individual situation as opposed to general strategies across the field

or higher education. One participant commented that institutions were too different across

higher education to create one or two strategies to combat attrition within the field.

I think you have to meet each employee individually, find out what

motivates that individual because I don’t think you can make that blanket

statement.. I think there are far too many types of institutions, and I think

there are far too many types of professionals in the field that I don’t know

that we are ever going to get our hands around that” (Slade L.)

Another participant believed each individual needed to make choices that suit

their specific professional and personal situation at mid-career. “I think (it) has to do with

personal choice and what you want to do. We have to make choices…combating burnout

is an individual choice of what you want to do.” (Francis H.) Even as a few participants

commented on viewing attrition from an individual situation there was still some concern

about how the field contributes to the mission and goals of higher education.

Even with the numerous strategies offered by different participants whether from

an institutional stance such as increased professional development and cross-training or

from an individual perspective like talking and working with colleagues and mentors, it

181

was still unclear what role the student affairs field had in working on the issue of

attrition. One participant believed the field was not as successful as it could be in

demonstrating its contribution to teaching and higher education. She felt professionals in

the field often are not entirely clear if they have contributed to any student learning.

According to her, this problem was partially solved by the field being more directive in

how they contribute to the learning environment.

I think we need to get better about what we do. A lot of what I see is that

we are not focusing on what student affairs contributes to higher

education….A lot of us get stuck in what can we do more of, we have

something for students, spend their money wisely but have no proof that

they are learning anything…One of the solutions is for student affairs to

get a little more directive in what they do and what they contribute to a

learning environment…Hopefully that will suffice to alleviate burnout

because we will be really contributing. (Nancy J.)

This was the only participant to directly discuss the issue of how student affairs

contributes to higher education and student learning, and its affect on attrition, although

many of the suggestions offered had an indirect affect.

Finally, the issue of having a balanced professional and personal life was also

discussed by one participant in addressing this question. Because the issue of work/life

balance was the subject of a previous section, I will not repeat the responses of

participants on this issue. However, for one particular participant the issue of leading a

balanced life was a way to combat burnout and attrition and according to her the only

way to stay professionally viable in the field over many years including mid-career. She

182

viewed this as a skill mid-career professionals needed to learn that involves “selling”

(Kathy S.) themselves to their supervisor and senior leadership so they could continually

appreciate and give feedback on the work being performed. This was occasionally

complicated by senior leadership that sometimes did not value a balanced life because of

generational differences. Unfortunately, for many mid-career participants who are not

living a balanced life, the field will continue to feel the affects of talented mid-career

professionals leaving student affairs.

The strategies offered by participants ranged from institutional to individual to

interpersonal. All of the suggestions had merit depending on the situation and motivation

of the individual but would need the additional support of supervisors, institutions, and

the field together to address issues of attrition in student affairs at mid-career.

Summary

In Chapter Four and Five, I provided a window into the lives of mid-career

student affairs professionals and how this period can be a rewarding but often challenging

time for many professionals. Participants faced issues of existing in dual worlds with

entry-level tasks and higher-level responsibilities. This created feelings of being stuck at

mid-career and not being supported as they choose to remain at mid-career or prepared to

advance into senior-level positions. These experiences were compounded by the

influences of their personal lives onto their professional careers. As Chapter Four

concluded with discussions of professional and personal lives converging at mid-career,

Chapter Five continued the story of the mid-career experience with a view into how the

satisfaction of participants related to the professional development they receive during

mid-career. This support came from many different sources including supervisors,

183

institutions, the field, and individuals. The professional development experience for

participants directly affected how they viewed their current and future position in the

field. Many participants viewed mid-career as the most important time to reflect and

sometimes act on their future in student affairs. However, all was not lost for many

participants who remained in the field for many different reasons, and they offered

thoughtful and productive ways to enhance the experiences of all mid-career career

professionals.

In the next and final chapter, I will review the research questions, methodology,

and the participant sample from my study. I then present the major findings from my

study surrounding how the mid-career professionals experience is defined and supported.

I then discuss the implications these findings have on individuals, institutions, and the

field including mid-career identity and retention. From my findings, I conclude with

remarks and suggestions for further research on the mid-career experience, and its impact

on the future of institutions and the field.

184

CHAPTER SIX

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

This study has examined mid-career student affairs professionals and how their

experiences have shaped their professional lives. The study participants were student

affairs professionals taking part in one of two institutes for mid-managers, held on an

annual basis and sponsored by two of the primary professional associations in student

affairs. They self-selected themselves as being mid-career in the field and provided an

appropriate background for beginning to study the experiences of mid-career student

affairs professionals. Over a period of approximately nine months, these study

participants submitted surveys or gave interview discussions regarding their working and

personal lives as student affairs professionals.

This chapter will begin with a review of the research study questions, the

methodology I employed in my research, and a description of a sample used in both

phases of the study. I will then discuss the major findings of my study as they relate

directly to the mid-career experience of student affairs professionals. My findings will

highlight serious implications for the field of students affairs, as they could impact

current and future professionals, as well as the future success of student affairs in

institutions of higher education. I conclude chapter six with a call for more needed

research on mid-career professionals, especially involving women and persons of color,

and how attrition and the mid-career experience impact the field of student affairs.

Research Questions, Methodology, and Sample

Before beginning the study, I developed several research questions to help guide

and frame the research.

185

1. What are the experiences of individuals who self-define as “mid-career

professionals” in student affairs?


3. What challenges and supports are present for mid-career professionals in

institutions and student affairs professional organizations?

4. How do the challenges and supports affecting mid-career professionals influence

their decision to or leave student affairs?

The research questions were used to assist in developing topics of inquiry from the

existing research. This included a discussion of what attributes contributed to a better

definition of “mid-career,” as the existing literature and the student affairs field itself was

less clear about this issue, which created some confusion among study participants.

Consequently, one of the primary goals of my study was to rely less on traditional

definitions offered by the field or past research, and gain an understanding of mid-career

through the responses solicited by the participants themselves. These responses allowed

me to compare and contrast my findings with those offered by the field and research, and

demonstrate that “mid-career” is an issue of confusion and concern by student affairs

professionals. Additionally, information offered by participants contributed towards

developing a major narrative of the study with a more expanded and elaborate definition

of mid-career. This definition was an important piece in the development of Chapters

Four and Five, and became the foundation for discussions on participants’ experiences at

mid-career.

The research was designed as a mixed-methods study consisting of surveys and

interviews conducted over a period of nine months. I then created a survey as an on-line

186

instrument where participants completed 10 questions on their mid-career experiences,

while remaining anonymous. The survey was undertaken first to help test and guide the

levels of inquiry for the interviews. During later months, I solicited participants from

both institutes to participate in detailed interviews conducted over the telephone with

electronic member-check of completed interviews via email. The survey gathered 19

completed responses from 23 total respondents. Using the responses from the survey to

help inform the line of questioning for the second phase, the interviews were completed

over approximately three months with 15 different participants.

The appendix includes a demographic breakdown of both the survey and

interview participants as reported to me. All interviews were transcribed by me and sent

to each interview participant for member-check. Because all respondents had participated

in one of two institutes for mid-managers no effort was made to recruit individuals by

race, gender, age, position, title, or responsibility. However, after organizing the data,

some of these factors did have an important influence on the experiences of participants

and were reported in chapters four and five.

Major Study Findings

I organized the findings into two chapters in order to chronicle the experiences of

participants which ran along a career timeline beginning with entry-level, moving into

mid-career, and concluding with their professional futures. Findings indicated an

important distinction and contradiction between how the field and institutions define mid-

career in student affairs, and how participants actually exist at mid-career. While there

were similar descriptions offered by participants as reported by research (Benke &

187

Disque, 1990; Gordon, Strode-Border, and Mann’s, 1993; Fey & Carpenter, 1996), for

many individuals it went beyond titles, responsibilities, and positions.

Mid-career was viewed by participants as an often confusing time which

contributed to a sense of feeling that they existed in two worlds, performing entry-level

tasks but with higher-level expectations. Participants felt the field of student affairs and

institutions were not helpful in defining and clarifying mid-career because both

subscribed to a one-dimensional view which did not consider the actual experiences of

individuals at mid-career. The confusion of existing at mid-career was also compounded

by participants trying to balance their personal lives with their working lives, where life

changes were occurring simultaneously. The field’s definition (Carpenter, Guido-DiBrito,

& Kelly, 1987; Barr, 1990; Benke & Disque, 1990; Gordon, Strode-Border, and Mann’s,

1993; Fey & Carpenter, 1996), of mid-career and how it was actually unfolding was often

seen as a false indicator of how participants were actually viewing their professional

futures.

Often, participants’ inability to reconcile their own mid-career experiences with

what was being offered by the field led many to feel they either could not move beyond

mid-career or were often overlooked by the field and institutions. This thread continued

to surface throughout my study. Closely linked with the definition of mid-career was how

participants viewed their future in the student affairs field. As previous chapters have

shown, the issue of retention and attrition in the field of student affairs has been discussed

in research (Bender, 1980; Burns, 1982; Evans, 1988). Because mid-career is seen by

student affairs professionals as a time of professional and personal change coupled with

188

confusion about their future in the field, I was interested in drawing out from participants

whether their desire to leave or stay in the field was affected by this experience.

The conflicting nature of the mid-career definition was mentioned frequently by

participants when discussing their intentions to leave or stay in the field at mid-career.

The issue of attrition was compounded for many participants by their feelings of being

poorly compensated in their positions involving entry-level tasks and higher-level

responsibilities in an atmosphere of frequent institutional political roadblocks. This

period in their professional career (Bender, 1980; Bossert, 1982), more then any other

segment was seen as one where participants pondered their futures in the field.

A second and somewhat surprising finding from this study involved the

professional development or support participants felt should happen at mid-career. For

them, professional support came in different forms at this point in their career.The most

often cited professional support originated with participants’ relationship with their

supervisors. Supervisor support was discussed equally among survey and interview

participants with both groups highlighting its importance in their development. Many of

them also viewed this support as occurring when they were in their first or second

positions after graduate school, before they had even reached mid-career. Unfortunately

for the field, participants did not believe the support given by supervisors was adequate

or happening frequently enough to be of positive benefit to them. The lack of

professional support from supervisors had wide-ranging effects for participants. It

influenced how they supported other professionals who reported to them, impinged on

their ability to advance into senior-level positions, and impacted how they viewed their

own future in the field.

189

The unequal distribution of professional development across institutions and the

field also influenced the mid-career experience for participants but was not discussed as

much as that of supervisor support. Similar to the feelings expressed earlier of being

professionally stuck in two competing worlds, the issue of professional development had

participants spending more time thinking about their futures in student affairs.

Taken separately, the two issues of defining what mid-career is and means, along

with that of a lack of professional support from supervisors, might not warrant much

concern from institutions or the field, but viewed as part of the overall mid-career student

affairs professional experience have the potential to influence and impact the current and

future position of individuals at mid-career who contribute to the bulk of student affairs

professionals in the field.

Implications

There were four major implications resulting from my study that I will discuss in

this chapter. They stem from significant areas of concern in the lives of mid-career

professionals as discussed above, such as professional support of supervisors and

associations, redefining the mid-career experience, and understanding how these issues

affect attrition in the field. If these implications are not better understood from within the

context of the overall mid-career experience many more talented individuals will

continue to question their future in the field. From the issues discussed in the previous

chapters, the most serious, yet perhaps easiest implication to address, begins in the

departments and divisions where mid-career professionals are working. This is the issue

of the supervisor/mid-career professional relationship, which has the most far-reaching

consequences of all the findings from my study.

190

Professional Support from the Supervisor

As in many professions, individuals might expect their supervisor or manager to

provide some level of professional support that might assist them in their current position

and beyond. Student affairs professionals would not be any different from their

counterparts in other fields in looking to their supervisors for support in current and

future endeavors at all periods of their careers. Most professionals in student affairs who

advance in the field eventually have the opportunity to supervise other individuals, who

are either professionals, graduate students, or undergraduate students. So why, after

reaching mid-career, do so many participants in this study point to the lack of

professional support from their supervisors? Clearly, as shown in my study, this is a

recurring issue that is being passed on from generation to generation of professional

supervisors. Institutions and the field of student affairs need to look at how and where

professional development and support is occurring. My study indicates an obvious

connection between the skills involving supervision and managing people and how this

experience is influencing the mid-career experience.

Professional Support from Associations and Institutions

Conferences and institutes present many different opportunities for professional

development. However, these opportunities do not include ones that address many of the

skills mid-career professionals need in order to become good and future supervisors. In

addition, conferences and institutes only occur once or twice annually and often focus on

specific topics put forth by participants. Still, the professional associations that sponsor

these conferences and institutes need to ensure the topic of supervision is addressed at

different levels and institutions. Much like the MMI that all of the study participants

191

attended, professional development opportunities supported by professional associations

need to provide more targeted ways to address the needs of its members. Studies like this

point to the issues and concerns that many mid-career professionals feel are not being

addressed by the field and their institutions. The issue of training supervisors not only to

be better supervisors but also to support the mid-career experience is the responsibility of

institutions, but it becomes a multi-faceted approach that should combine the cooperation

of professional associations in the field as well as institutional resources.

Many participants also believed the variety of institutions did not encourage

consistent strategies for combating attrition within the field, by providing the necessary

kinds of development for their professional future. This issue could also go hand-in-hand

with that of needed professional support from supervisors. Ironically, it is the institutions

that contain the resources for providing the kinds of strategies, or development, needed to

enhance the supervisor/mid-career professional relationship, as well as for other

professional areas. Development workshops could benefit supervisors who have limited

experience in supervision and assist in ending the cycle of poorly trained supervisors.

These same supervisors are the professionals who reach mid-career after experiencing

inadequate professional development during entry-level positions and continue to repeat

this experience for the individuals they supervise.

When mid-career student affairs professionals do not feel supported or

professionally engaged, their divisions, institutions and the field suffer from stagnation

and risk losing involved and active professionals who keep the field of student affairs

moving ahead. Mid-career professionals emulate their experience of being supervised and

it helps shape their own supervisory experience. The field supports the professional

192

development of individuals and graduate programs help prepare them for a career in

student affairs. Unfortunately, graduate programs only last as long as commencement and

professional conferences are not always cost effective and only occur annually. This

leaves individuals who work along side mid-career professionals to encourage, provide,

and create the professional development opportunities that mid-career individuals feel

they are not receiving. This support originates from within divisions, institutions, and the

field. It means mid-career professionals are connecting with other mid-career

professionals and senior-levels who mentor them from all over the field. In creating these

professional networks for mid-career individuals it helps evenly spread the responsibility

of their development at mid-career across higher education.

Redefining Mid-Career

Once they reach mid-career, who exactly are the professionals that make up the

largest segment of the student affairs population? Are they just the titles and positions

they have achieved, along with reaching a “certain age” that the field suggests

characterize mid-career, or are they, instead, a combination of expectations and

responsibilities that create a multi-layered experience at mid-career? The answer for

participants in this study is a mixture of both, thus creating an often confusing and

frustrating experience at mid-career. When asked to define mid-career, participants gave

familiar answers found in the literature from the field and institutions. However, it was

the actual experience participants were having at mid-career that transcended their

position that labeled them as mid-career. The mid-career experience, combined with

familiar definitions from the field, creates an unsettled time for individuals who question

their role in student affairs.

193

This ambiguous role creates a professional identity crisis for mid-career student

affairs professionals, where they exist in parallel worlds of entry-level responsibilities

and high-level expectations that often compete for their professional time and expertise.

This could result in individuals never fully recognizing their professional potential

because they fluctuate between two competing priorities. This would suggest that the

field, institutions, the supervisors, and even the student affairs individuals themselves

need to subscribe to a more detailed and complex definition of mid-career. It should also

be characterized by a multifaceted understanding of the numerous roles played by many

mid-career professionals and how these roles impact their effectiveness in their positions

and at their institutions.

The mid-career experience for participants in this study often centered less on the

title or position they occupied, but more on the feelings they had about their everyday

responsibilities. Participants often described the dualistic existence of performing entry-

level tasks combined with higher-level responsibilities and expectations, as a confusing

place to reside in their professional careers. Had they in fact arrived at mid-career as their

position indicated, or were they still lingering in entry-level positions as evidenced by

some of their responsibilities? Indications from the field and their institutions seemed to

suggest that they had indeed arrived at mid-career. Yet, after attending an institute for

mid-managers and returning to their institutions with a renewed sense of “mid-

careerness” and using that new awareness in their work, they arrived back on campus

even more confused about their “place” in their career and still struggling with existing in

two worlds.

Attrition in Student Affairs

194

The confusion felt by mid-career student affairs professionals could eventually

lead to dissatisfaction in their professional and personal lives, and because research has

shown that mid-career is often a time when individuals examine their professional future,

the dissatisfaction could easily lead to attrition from the field. Added to this confusion is

a lack of professional development offered by supervisors, institutions and the field, and

it becomes an increased attrition problem for a profession already symbolized by low

salaries, unsustainable workloads, and overwork. Fortunately, all was not lost for many

participants in this study when it came to issues of attrition.

Participants offered suggestions they believed would help combat attrition, such

as increased supervisor support, cross-training within divisions, a professional mentoring

network across the field, and opportunities to enhance professional vitality modeled after

faculty programs. Unfortunately for many, the culture of student affairs does not

encourage professionals to be balanced in their professional or personal lives, and this

makes many of these suggestions unattainable. So where do mid-career professionals go

in their search for a mid-career identity? As participants discussed in the study, they do

not go to their supervisors or institutions for assistance, because the ambiguous signals in

the field of student affairs tacitly encourages confusion and a lifestyle of pressure and

stress. Instead, these mid-career professionals leave their positions, either remaining in

higher education but occupying another professional arena, or they leave higher

education entirely.

Although, by leaving the field of student affairs, mid-career professionals don’t

provide a much-needed solution to the problems that remain behind, their departure does

highlight the fact that mid-career is filled with anxiety, confusion, and uneasiness. This

195

recognition of the problem by the field of student affairs and institutions could be the first

step in changing the mid-career student affairs experience for the largest group of

professionals in the field.

The next and crucial step for the field and institutions is to act on the mid-career

experience and begin to create initiatives and programs to help change the mid-career

experience for many individuals, thus reversing the stereotypical view that mid-career in

student affairs can be a negative experience for professionals.

Study participants offered various strategies for assisting in keeping people in the

field; some as simple as mentoring mid-career professionals and others as complex as

providing a more comprehensive understanding of the mid-career experience on a

national level. If the mid-career experience is not more fully recognized and understood

then as the increasing numbers of retiring senior-level practitioners begins to accelerate

as some suggest, there will be no experienced, committed, and dedicated professionals to

fill the void. This is a serious and potentially field-changing occurrence that could take

years to reverse and could erase all the gains made by the field over the last 40 years.

Future Research

In both the survey sample (15 out of 23) and interview sample (11 out of 15), the

majority of participants were women. Many of these women had either partners, families,

or were thinking of starting a family, and a few, but significant number of participants,

identified themselves as persons of color. As a result of having a majority of women

participate in the study, I advocate the need for further research on women in student

affairs with an emphasis on women in senior-level positions and their influence on

women at mid-career. I also call for additional research on persons of color and the

196

additional challenges and hurdles they face at mid-career. Finally, I call for more specific

research into the link between the mid-career experience and attrition in student affairs,

which includes an improved understanding on the effects of the supervisor/mid-career

professional relationship, re-defining mid-career, and the institutional climate for mid-

career professionals.

Women Advancing at Mid-Career

The majority of women participants in both the survey and interview components

of the study and their responses to their experiences as mid-career women in student

affairs, suggest they still face some familiar and often ingrained challenges. The

demographic breakdown of study participants showed many had partners and either had

or were seriously considering having children while at mid-career, and many of their

responses echoed complaints many women in the workforce have voiced for decades.

Issues such as inflexible work schedules, career prominence in a partnership, male

supervisors without children or a spouse who takes care of them, and a professional

lifestyle not modeled around having children, all affected the mid-career experience. An

interesting aspect to the issue of mid-career women was also discussed by participants

involving women in senior student affairs positions who either did not have children, or

whose children were not living with them. While many of the participants embraced but

also challenged things occurring for women in student affairs, many were dismayed at the

apparent lack of women in senior student affairs officer positions on their campuses, who

might have chosen not to have children to advance in the field or whose children were

grown. Participants felt their female supervisors in this situation might not understand or

appreciate their family situation. Some participants attributed this occurrence to an issue

197

of advancement, commenting that perhaps women had to sacrifice a family life at mid-

career in order to advance in the field.

As women in student affairs continue to reach mid-career and begin thinking

about advancement in the field, the issue of family and personal commitments can

become a more complex issue. An important area to research beyond this study might

include how women at mid-career are thinking about families and how it factors into their

desires to advance in the field. As this study has shown, mid-career is a time to evaluate

how personal and professional commitments coincide. If mid-career women are feeling a

disconnect between wanting to begin a family and advancing in the field, and they decide

to leave the field because of this conflict, this attrition cause eventually leads, too, to

fewer talented professionals progressing into the senior-level positions in the field.

Race and Ethnicity at Mid-Career

This research also revealed how the issue of culture, race, ethnicity, and

socioeconomic background can detract or enhance this experience and would be an

important component to be added to a study of mid-career in student affairs. While none

of these factors were a focus of this study, there was enough discussion from participants

who identified themselves as persons of color to warrant further study about how mid-

career presents additional challenges in these areas. Research has shown that those

individuals, not identifying with the white majority, continue to face issues in

professional environments that could overlap and complicate their existence in mid-

career. The added issue of external and internal pressures faced by some persons of color

further complicates the mid-career experience. It would be important to note why and

how these pressures still exist in higher education and, specifically, in student affairs. In

198

this study, the challenges mid-career women and persons of color in student affairs face

relate back to the discussion about retention and attrition in the field. As the study has

shown, mid-career becomes an important time for individuals to evaluate their

professional and personal lives in the field.

The Impact of Mid-Career on Attrition

Even as this research specifically studied how the experiences at mid-career can

influence attrition in student affairs, it is still not entirely clear how much of an effect it

created, although there was enough data to warrant continued research into this issue. If

there were enough factors to influence participants to seriously consider leaving or

remaining in the field, further research is necessary to determine which issues might have

a higher correlation during mid-career to influence such a decision. The familiar issues of

low salaries and increased workloads have been documented in the literature (Austin,

1985; Rosser, 2004), and while study participants mentioned these issues as influential in

discussing attrition from the field, there were many other issues as well that impacted

study participants’ discussions.

The concern around retention and attrition for student affairs and research is the

lack of in-depth and longitudinal studies of this issue which could establish a clear link

between mid-career stressors and professionals leaving the field. Past research on mid-

career includes attrition as a concern, (Bender, 1980; Bossert, 1982; Burns, 1982; Evans,

1988) an issue student affairs professionals discuss with their colleagues still in the field

and with those who have already left the field. However, there are no specific studies

documenting this as a concern for student affairs so that the field and institutions can

develop strategies to specifically address the reasons why people are leaving field. This

199

includes studying individuals who have left student affairs, but remain in higher

education, and individuals who have left the field and higher education entirely. These

experiences are what research should focus on to understand the true scope of the issue

and to what extent it negatively impacts the field. Until this happens in a purposeful and

meaningful way, student affairs will have to rely on small examples of research, such as

this study, that hint at this issue, but is not comprehensive enough to make informed and

educated decisions about retention and attrition.

Responsibility for Professional Development at Mid-Career

As this study has shown, professional development involving supervisors was

seen as a critical influence on the mid-career student affairs experience. Less clear from

the research was how much professional support should occur between supervisors and

mid-career professionals. Based on the discussion of participants from this study, there is

an apparent disconnect between how institutions and the field believe professional

development and support occurs and how mid-career professionals are actually

experiencing it. One possible reason for this was suggested earlier in this chapter

involving a closed loop involving past new and mid-career individuals who did not

receive adequate professional development. Those same professionals are now the senior

and mid-career individuals responsible for supervising a great majority of new, and more

importantly, mid-career professionals, who are experiencing the same lack of

professional support and development. There are conference sessions and institutes in

student affairs, and professional development at many institutions specifically targeting

how individuals become good or better supervisors. So why are supervisors not being

200

trained to help develop and support their staff to prosper professionally at an institution

and in the field?

The Vital Mid-Career Professional

One of the goals of this study was to report on best practices for institutions, as

well as the field. As discussed in the research on mid-career faculty (Baldwin, 1979;

Baldwin, 1990), institutions need to understand how to create professionally vital

environments for their mid-career student affairs professionals. The field of student

affairs seems to have a better sense of the mid-career period, yet still falls short of how to

keep those individuals engaged as part of their experience. Study participants discussed

several ways of helping prepare supervisors to develop mid-career professionals. This

would be a first step in understanding the complexities of the supervisor/mid-career

professional dynamic. Comprehensive and institution-specific studies of how universities

and colleges provide professional development for supervisors in order to better support

them should be encouraged and developed by the field, researchers, and practitioners in

student affairs.

These types of studies not only legitimize the concerns of many mid-career

professionals who do not feel supported by their supervisors, it also informs the field and

institutions of best practices that can be adopted or encouraged by senior student affairs

officers in their own divisions. This study began identifying an important missing

component in the supervisor/mid-career professional relationship. It is now up to the field

and institutions to better understand this separation through research and create ways to

enhance this experience.

201

The “New” Definition of Mid-Career

Throughout the study, participants voiced concern about how student affairs

defines and classifies the mid-career experience. How mid-career was defined by many in

this study was in significant contrast to the classifications student affairs was using to

label and define these same professionals. It seems important for the field to embark on

an evaluation of the terms and methods it uses to define mid-career professionals and

begin research to enhance and improve those definitions that encompass a more

thoughtful description of the mid-career experience. This study suggests the current

language used by the field to define mid-career professionals negates the richer, yet

complicated experience that is mid-career. Further research on how mid-career in student

affairs is often limited by the labels attached by the field and institutions would assist

mid-career professionals in interpreting their own experiences once reaching this

important period.

The complex definition of mid-career offered by study participants, also

generated the feelings of existing in a dualistic world. The world for participants was one

part entry-level and another part higher-level, both often in conflict with the other in their

professional and personal lives. The definition of mid-career can no longer just be

subscribed to mere titles or positions; it must include the experiences of mid-career

professionals in the field whose lives have been chronicled and studied across all areas in

student affairs. The research must support the need to understand this critical timeframe

in the lives of mid-career professionals and how they are more then their titles or

positions. This new research should include qualitative and quantitative studies which

enable the field to encompass the wide-ranging types of institutions that exist in higher

202

education where mid-career professionals reside. New and on-going research must

demonstrate to the field and institutions that the rewarding, confusing, and often muddled

time known as mid-career is not something to dread reaching, but instead a time to

develop as competent student affairs professionals.

Conclusion

Mid-career student affairs professionals compose the largest group of individuals

in the field and perform many of the vital functions found at institutions. This puts mid-

career individuals in a unique situation to have a greater impact on the students they work

with and in the field of student affairs. Unfortunately, as this study has demonstrated,

mid-career in student affairs is also one of the most misunderstood and challenging career

timeframes in the field. The challenges originate from several different areas that

continue to enhance the confusion mid-career professionals experience in their roles at

their institutions and in the field. These challenges contribute to an uncertain time in the

lives of mid-career professionals that erode the vitality and significance of this core group

of individuals.

This study pointed to a student affairs field which, for many participants,

contained numerous concerns for them at mid-career. It began with a lack of a clear and

consistent definition of who a mid-career professional was, and culminated with a sense

of their existing in two worlds, which was detrimental, not only to their current roles in

student affairs administration, but also impacted how they envisioned their future in the

field. Even as the field attempted to create more meaningful and thoughtful ways to

alleviate some of the issues facing individuals at mid-career, participants instead viewed

student affairs as one of the main sources of their frustrations. For many in this study, the

203

field was clearly not doing all it could to address the difficult issues facing mid-career

professionals.

Taking a more local view of their mid-career experience, many participants

looked to institutions and their colleagues for assistance in understanding and developing

at mid-career. All of the study participants had supervisors and some worked at

institutions that supported their development in varying ways. Supervisors were seen as

the key individuals to help make sense of mid-career by encouraging and supporting

professional development at the institution and in the field. But for participants it often

fell short of their expectations and for some it was lacking almost entirely. As

participants searched for a clearer identity at mid-career their institutions and supervisors

did not meet their expectations. Without a clear definition of who they are as

professionals, and lacking support for their development from supervisors and

institutions, participants began to question their future in student affairs. If they did not

feel supported professionally and were not even sure who they were, participants faced

the task of trying to understand their mid-career status on their own.

This time of professional uncertainty was coupled with changes in mid-career

individuals’ personal lives. All of these factors came together to create an environment

open for the possibility of leaving student affairs. Adding such issues as low salaries and

high workloads to the uncertainties of mid-career created for them the potential for

leaving the field. While there is not yet a serious drain of talent from the field, this study

has shown that the experiences of mid-career student affairs professionals could have an

impact in accelerating this trend.

204

It is now time for the field, institutions, and individuals to recognize that mid-

career is not just one more stop along the career path in student affairs, but a time of

significant professional achievement, influence, and vitality. There must now be a

concerted effort by all three stakeholders to understand who mid-career professionals are

and how their experiences are shaped and influenced by all of them. Without this shift in

thinking, the future of mid-career student affairs professionals will remain as uncertain

and unclear as this study suggests.

205

References

Arminio, J. L., & Hultgren, F. H. (2002). Breaking out from the shadow: The question of

criteria in qualitative research. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4),

446-460.

Arnold, K. (1982). Career development for the experienced student affairs professional.

NASPA Journal, 20(2), 3-8.

Association of College Personnel Administrators (n.d.). Statement of ethical principles

and standards. Retrieved February 26, 2006, from

http://www.myacpa.org/au/au_ethical.cfm

Association of College Personnel Administrators (n.d.) Professional development.

Retrieved March 31, 2007 from http://www.myacpa.org/pd/mmi/

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.

Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308.

Austin, A. E. (1984). The work experience of university and college administrators.

Administrators’ Update, 6(1), 1-5.

Austin, A. E. (1985). Factors contributing to job satisfactions of university mid-level

administrators. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the

Study of Higher Education (ASHE), Chicago, IL.

Baldwin, R. G. (1979). Adult and career development: What are the implications for

faculty. Current Issues in Higher Education. 13-20.

Baldwin, R. G. (1990). Faculty career stages and the implications for professional

development. In J. H. Schuster & D. W. Wheeler (Eds.),

Enhancing Faculty Careers (pp. 29-40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

206

Baldwin, R. G. (1990). Faculty vitality beyond the research university: Extending a

contextual concept. Journal of Higher Education, 61(2), 160-180.

Baldwin, R. G. & Blackburn, R. T. (1981). The academic careers as a developmental

process: Implications for higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 52(6),

598-614.

Baldwin, R. G., & Blackburn, R. T. (1983). The condition of the professoriate: The

variables and the data bases. In Baldwin, R. G. & Blackburn, R. T. (Eds.),

New Directions for Institutional Research, 10(4), 95-101.

Barr, M. J. (1990). Making the transition to a professional role. East Lansing, MI:

Beginning your journey: A guide for new professionals in student affairs. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED470564)

Belker, J. S. (1985). The education of mid-career professors: Is it continuing?

College Teaching, 33(2), 68-71.

Bender, B. E. (1980). Job satisfaction in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 18(2), 2-9.

Benke, M., & Disque, C. S. (1990). Moving in, out, up, or nowhere? The mobility of

mid-managers. In The invisible leaders; student affairs mid-mangers,

Washington, D.C.: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.

Birnbaum, R. (1991). Making decisions and making sense. In How colleges work (pp. 56-

81). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blimling, G. S. (2002). Reflections on career development among student affairs leaders.

New Directions for Student Services, 98, 27-36.

Boice, R. (1986). Faculty development via field programs for middle-aged, disillusioned

faculty. Research in Higher Education, 25(2), 115-135.

207

Bolyard, C. W. (1981). Career development: Who’s responsible in the organization?

In Montyross, D. H. & Shinkman, C. J. (Eds.), Career development in the 1980s,

theory and practice (pp. 290-293). Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas Publishing.

Bossert, R. (1982). Career mobility of mid-level administrators in higher education.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.

Brown, M. (1998). What are the qualities of good research? In F. H. Hultgren & D.L.

Coomer (Eds.), Alternate modes of inquiry in home economics research (pp. 257-

297). Peoria, IL: Glencoe Press.

Burns, M. A. (1982). Who leaves the student affairs field? NASPA Journal, 20(2), 9-12.

Caffarella, R. S. et al. (1989). Mid-career faculty: Refocusing the perspective.

Review of Higher Education, 12(4), 403-10.

Carpenter, D. S., Guido-DiBrito, F., & Kelly, J. P. (1987). Transferability of student

affairs skills and competencies: Light at the end of the bottleneck. NASPA

Journal, 24(3), 5-14.

Carpenter, D. S., & Miller, T. K. (1981). An analysis of professional development in

student affairs work. NASPA Journal, 19(1), 3-10.

Carpenter, D. S., & Miller, T. K. (1990). Professional development and career issues for

mid-managers. In Young, R. B. (Ed.). National Association of Student Personnel

Administrators, Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED335998)

Carter, T. J. (2002). The importance of talk to mid-career women’s development: A

collaborative inquiry. Journal of Business Communication, 39 55-91.

Cherryholmes, C. H. (1992). Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational

Researcher, 14, 13-17.

208

Cliente, K., Henning, G., Skinner Jackson, J., Kennedy, D., & Sloan, T. (2006). Report

on new professionals needs study. Washington, DC: American College Personnel

Association. Retrieved December 11, 2006.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Cytrynbaum, S., Lee, S., & Wadner, D. (1982). Faculty development through the life

course. Journal of Instructional Development, 5(3), 11-22.

Doyle, J. A. (2004). Where have we come from and where are we going? A review of

past student affairs philosophies and an analysis of the current student learning

philosophy. College Student Affairs Journal, 24(1), 1-18.

Evans, N. J. (1988). Attrition of student affairs professionals: A review of the literature.

Journal of College Student Development, 19-24.

Fey, C. J., & Carpenter, D. S. (1996). Mid-level student affairs administrators:

Management skills and professional development needs. NASPA Journal, 33,

218-231.

Freiberg, M., Zbikowski, J., & Ganser, T. (1997). Promoting mid-career growth through

mentoring. Journal of Staff Development, 18(2), 52-54.

Gordon, S. E., Strode-Border, C. & Mann, B. A. (1993). The mid-manager in student

affairs: What are CSAOs looking for? NASPA Journal, 30(4), 13-16.

Hancock, J. E. (1988). Needs and reinforcers in student affairs: Implications for attrition.

Journal of College Student Development, 29(1), 25-30.

Harder, M. B. (1983). Career patterns of chief student personnel administrators. Journal

of College Student Personnel, 24, 443-448.

209

Harned, P. J., & Murphy, M. C. (1998). Creating a culture of development for the new

professional. New Directions for Student Services, 84, 43-53.

Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of career. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Holmes, D., Verrier, D., & Chisolm, P. (1983). Persistence in student affairs work:

Attitude and job shifts among master’s program graduates. Journal of College

Student Personnel, 24, 438-443.

Holmes, T., & Cartwright, S. (1991). Mid-career change: The ingredients for success.

Employee Relations, 16, 7.

Howard-Hamilton, M. (2004). Considering the doctorate. In K.A. Renn & C. Hughes

(Eds.), Roads Taken: Women in Student Affairs at Mid-Career, Sterling, VA:

Stylus Publishing.

Hughes, C. (2004). Reflections of a working mother in student affairs. In K.A. Renn & C.

Hughes (Eds.), Roads Taken: Women in Student Affairs at Mid-Career, Sterling,

VA: Stylus Publishing.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research

paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Johnsrud, L. K. (1999). Predicting and reducing midlevel administrative turnover.

College and University Personnel Association Journal, 50(1,2), 1-8.

Johnsrud, L. K., Heck, R. H., & Rosser, V. J. (2000). Morale matters: Midlevel

administrators and their intent to leave. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(1),

34-59.

Jones, S. R. (2002). (Re)Writing the word: Methodological strategies and issues in

210

qualitative research. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4), 461-473.

Karpiak, I. E. (1996). Ghosts in a wilderness: Problems and priorities of faculty at

mid-career and mid-life. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 26(3), 49-78.

Klingner, D. E., & Nalbandian, J. (1985). In Public Personnel Management. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Komives, S. R. (1992). The middles: Observations on professional competence and

autonomy. NASPA Journal, 29(2), 83-90.

Kovan, J. T., & Dirkx, J. M. (2003). “Being called awake”: The role of transformative

learning in the lives of environmental activists. Adult Education Quarterly, 53(2),

99-118.

Levinson, D. J. (1978). The mid-life transition. The seasons of a man’s life (pp.191-208).

New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Lofquist, L. H., & Davis, R. V. (1969). A theory of work adjustment. Adjustment to work,

(pp. 43-55). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

London, M. (1990). Enhancing career motivation in late career. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 3(2), 58-71.

Lorden, L. P. (1998). Attrition in the student affairs profession. NASPA Journal, 35(3),

207-214.

Lunsford, L. W. (1984). Chief student affairs officer: The ladder to the top. NASPA

Journal, 22(1), 48-56.

Marshall, S. (2004). Motherhood and student affairs: The skillful art of managing work

and family. In K.A. Renn & C. Hughes (Eds.), Roads Taken: Women in Student

Affairs at Mid-Career, Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

211

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1991). Adult development and the learning

experience. Learning in adulthood, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis, Thousand Oaks:

Sage Publications.

National Association of College Personnel Administrators (n.d.). Grad preparation

programs. Retrieved March 30, 2005 from

http://www.naspa.org/gradprep/index.cfm

National Association of College Personnel Administrators (n.d.) Knowledge

communities. Retrieved March 31, 2007 from

Renn, K. A., & Hughes, C. (Eds.). Roads taken: Women in student affairs at mid-career.

Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Richmond, J., & Sherman, K. J. (1991). Student-development preparation and placement:

A longitudinal study of graduate students’ and new professionals’ experiences.

Journal of College Student Development, 32(8), 16.

Rickard, S. T. (1982). Turnover at the top: A study of the chief student affairs officer.

NASPA Journal, 20(2), 37-41.

Rocco, T. S., Bliss, L. A., Gallagher, S., & Perez-Prado, A. (2003). Taking the next step:

Mixed methods research in organizational systems. Information Technology,

Learning, and Performance Journal, 21(1), 19-29.

Roper, L. (2002). Relationships: The critical ties that bind professionals. New Directions

for Student Services, 98, 11-26.

212

Rosser, V. J. (2004). A national study on midlevel leaders in higher education: The

unsung professionals in the academy. Higher Education: The International

Journal of Higher Education, 48, 317-337.

Rosser, V. J. & Javinar, J. M. (2003). Midlevel student affairs leaders’ intentions to

leave: Examining the quality of their professional and institutional work life.

Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 813-827.

Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to

qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Schor, J. B. (2003). The (even more) overworked American. In J. de Graff (Ed.), Take

back your time: Fighting overwork and time poverty in America, San Francisco:

Berrett-Koehler.

Tarver, D., Canada, R., & Lim, M. (1999). The relationship between job satisfaction and

locus of control among college student affairs administrators and academic

advisors. NASPA Journal, 36(2), 96-105.

United States Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics (n.d.). 2005 Current

population survey. Retrieved March 4, 2005, from

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2005/jan/wk1/art04.htm

Volkwein, J. F., & Parmley, K. (2000). Comparing administrative satisfaction in public

and private universities. Research in Higher Education, 41(1), 95-116.

Ward, L. (1995). Role stress and propensity to leave among new student affairs

professionals. NASPA Journal, 33(1), 35-45.

Whitt, E. J. (1991). Artful science: A primer on qualitative research methods. Journal of

College Student Development, 32, 406-415.

213

Wiggers, T. T., Forney, D. S., & Wallace-Shutzman, F. (1982). Burnout is not necessary:

Prevention and recovery. NASPA Journal, 20(2),

Williams, S. L., & Fox, C. J. (1995). Organizational approaches for managing mid-career

personnel. Public Personnel Management, 24, 351-363.

Wolf-Wendel, L. E., Twombly, S. B., & Rice, S. (2004). Dual career couples. In K.A.

Renn & C. Hughes (Eds.), Roads Taken: Women in Student Affairs at Mid-

Career, Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Wood, L., Winston, R. B., & Polkosnik, M. C. (1985). Career orientations and

professional development of young student affairs professionals. Journal of

College Student Personnel, 26(26), 532-539.

Young, R. B. (1990). Professional development and career issues for mid-managers.

In Young, R. B. (Ed.). National Association of Student Personnel Administrators,

Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED335998)

214

APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS

Table of Survey Participants

DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY OF ON-LINE SURVEY PARTICIPANTS all demographic information was reported by participant to researcher

AGE SEX RACE/ETHNICITY INSTITUTION TYPE FIELD 30 F African-American 4-year, private student activitie34 M ? small, private, 4-year executive direct48 F ? old, British, large institution counseling

50's* F African-American urban, large, commuter student life 43 F Caucasian small, public, 4-year student life 44 M ? large, public, 4-year ? 26 M Caucasian small, public, 4-year student life 32 F Caucasian large, public, 4-year residence life 38 F Caucasian large, public, 4-year counseling 32 F ? private, urban, 4-year campus activitie42 F Caucasian large, private, 4-year student life 32 M Asian-American large, public, 4-year student activitie33 M Caucasian large, public, 4-year ? 31 F Caucasian large, public, 4-year student leaders32 M ? large, public, 4-year student activitie32 F Caucasian large, public, 4-year student conduct47 F Caucasian small, public, 4-year counseling 33 F Caucasian Mid-sized, private, 4-year student union 30 M African-American large, public, 4-year residence life 40 M ? public, 4-year residence life 36 F African-American large, public, 4-year dean's office 42 F Caucasian large, public, 4-year student activitie34 F Caucasian large, public, 4-year fitness

Average Age*= 37.09 *used

age of 55 for non-specific

age reporting

215

Summary Table of Interview Participants

DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS all demographic information was reported by participant to researcher PSEUDONYM AGE SEX RACE/ETHNICITY INSTITUTION TYPE FIELD Joyce B. 45 F Caucasian large, public, 4-year disability reJulie S. 38 F Caucasian large, public, 4-year counselingFrank B. 27 M Caucasian mid-size, public, 4-year student lifeGeorge S. 30 M African-American mid-size, public, 2-year student affaMargaret T. 30 F Caucasian small, private, 4-year dean's officNancy J. mid 30's* F Caucasian large, public, 4-year student life/Carrie P. mid 30's* F Caucasian large, public, 4-year student uniSarah F. 33 F person of color large, public, 4-year residence Janet R. 32 F Caucasian medium, private, 4-year campus actBill M. 34 M Caucasian large, public, 4-year dean's officAlice N. 31 F Caucasian public, 4-year student lifeFrancis H. 34 F Caucasian large, public, 4-year dean's officSlade L. 37 M Caucasian large, public, 4-year student actKathy S. 37 F Caucasian small, private, 4-year campus actMary S. 50's* F Caucasian medium, public, 4-year IT (within st

*not directly researcher

Average age* 35.53 *used age of 35 and 55 for non-specific age reporting

PSEUDONYM FAMILY CHILDREN Joyce B. ? yes Julie S. divorced yes Frank B. married ? George S. single no Margaret T. married ? Nancy J. married ? Carrie P. married yes Sarah F. single no Janet R. married no Bill M. married yes Alice N. married no Francis H. married yes Slade L. married expecting Kathy S. married yes Mary S. ? ?

216

APPENDIX B: ON-LINE SURVEY

MID-CAREER IN STUENT AFFAIRS

1. Consent and Confidentiality

You are being asked to participate in a pilot study examining possible factors influencing the retention and attrition of mid-career or mid-level student affairs professionals. In this pilot study you will complete a questionnaire concerning specific themes developed from the literature on mid-career time-frames. There are 6 questions sometimes with multiple parts designed to elicit short answers based on individual experiences as a mid-career student affairs professional. It should take you approximately 15 minutes to complete. Please indicate in your responses which question you are replying to e.g. #4a., #5, or #9c., etc. Your completion of this questionnaire is voluntary, you may choose not to participate at all, or you may refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions or discontinue your participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. All questionnaires will be kept confidential by the researcher to the maximum extent allowable by law. If you have any questions about this pilot study you may contact the investigator, Michael Houdyshell, 4001 W. McNichols, Detroit, MI 48219, (313) 993-1033, or [email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, you may contact-anonymously, if you wish- Peter Vasilenko, PhD, Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at Michigan State University (UCRIHS) by phone (517) 355-2180, fax (517) 432-4503, [email protected], 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing 48824. By completing this questionnaire, you indicate your voluntary consent to participate in this pilot study and have your answers included in the project data set. If you choose to not continue with the pilot study please exit this questionnaire now.

2. Professional Background

1. Please briefly describe your experiences in becoming a professional in student affairs. In your response please indicate your age, gender, title, type of institution you currently work at, and if you consider yourself part of a traditionally underrepresented group.

3. Student Affairs and the Mid-Career

How would you define what it means to be a mid-career student affairs professional?

217

Do you think the student affairs field provides enough professional support to individuals reaching mid-career time frames? What does that support (skills) look like or what could it look like?

4. Professional Advancement

Would a decrease in the number of senior level student affairs positions influence your decision to remain in the field as you progress professionally? How does the field of student affairs prepare you professionally as you advance in the field? How does your particular institution prepare you professionally as you advance in the field?

5. Professional Preparation What helped prepare you for your first position(s) in student affairs?

What kinds of things could have better prepared you for your first position(s) in student affairs? e.g. stronger link of theory to practice in your graduate program, stronger supervisor, more assistantship/practicum experience, etc..

6. Attrition

Have you thought about leaving the field of student affairs entirely in the last year? In the last 2-5 years? If you answered yes, please list any reasons affecting these thoughts. e.g. institutional issues, personal commitments, burnout, advancement If you answered no, please list the reasons why you chose to remain. If you have already decided to leave the field entirely in the next year please list what factors contributed to this decision. e.g., institutional issues, personal commitments, burnout, advancement Are you interested in participating in a longitudinal study further exploring factors that influence the retention and attrition of mid-career professionals?

7. Follow-up and Future Study

Thank you for your participation in this questionnaire. Your responses will help further research on mid-career issues. If you are interested in a follow-up

218

telephone conversation concerning your answers or would prefer to answer these questions over the telephone please email the researcher at [email protected] or call 313-993-1033.

219

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR MID-CAREER STUDENT AFFAIRS INTERVIEWS

To be completed before each interview begins 1. email solicitation sent to target population seeking participation 2. interested participants have received follow-up email explaining study 3. informed consent form completed and returned to researcher

PARTICIPANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Please describe in detail what you currently do in student affairs and how you entered the profession. opening interview statement

2. MID-CAREER AT STUDENT AFFAIRS

1. How would you define what it means to be at mid-career in student affairs?-key question

2. How do you think the student affairs field chooses to recognize and define mid-career?-probing question

3. Talk about your experiences moving from being a new professional (first or second position) into more mid-career student affairs positions? probing question

4. Discuss your reactions to defining mid-career in student affairs more broadly such as with the different professional experiences or more specifically such as with the number of years in the field and/or position title? probing question

5. Some in student affairs have commented that being at mid-career in student affairs is an important time in their career to decide whether to continue in the profession. What do you think of this statement? probing question

6. What is your reaction to the idea that individuals at mid-career in student affairs are often rooted in two worlds-one, performing some entry-level tasks and two, expectations of performing higher level functions and responsibilities? probing question

GRADUATE SCHOOL OR ASSISTANTSHIP PREPARATION OR PRE-FIRST PROFESSIONAL POSITION 1. If you graduated from a traditional student affairs master’s program, how did it

prepare you for your first professional position?-key question 2. What would the pre-professional or graduate assistantship preparation look like to

prepare you for your first professional position and beyond? –key question 3. If you had an assistantship in a student affairs area during graduate school what

things during that time helped prepare for your first position? follow-up to question number 2

4. In your graduate program do you believe you received more skills based or theory based training? Key question

5. Discuss how the link from theory to practice was taught and/or established during your graduate program?-key question

PROFESSIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AT MID-CAREER

220

1. Talk about how you believe the field prepares individuals professionally as they advance in their career especially at mid-career.-key question

2. Where should the responsibility of providing adequate professional support should fall? Follow-up to question 1

3. Discuss the role institutions play in providing professional support for student affairs professionals. follow-up question to question1 and 2

4. Talk about how the field provides professional support for individuals at mid-career who do not choose to advance to a senior level position. probing question

5. Discuss the role supervisors have in supporting someone professionally at mid-career? probing question

PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL CONGRUENCE 1. How does being at mid-career in student affairs correspond to your personal

situation?-key question 2. Talk about how the field supports individuals at mid-career who have families or

are thinking of starting a family. –key question 3. How do you think being at mid-career in student affairs impacts the decision of

when to start a family? Follow-up question to number 2 4. How does the number of hours beyond the traditional 40-hour work week that is

often required of student affairs professionals impact mid-career individuals? probing question

5. Discuss some of the additional pressures exerted on women at mid-career in student affairs. probing question

CAREER LADDER AND SENIOR STUDENT AFFAIRS POSITIONS 1. Discuss your reaction to the idea that the number of senior level positions in

student affairs gets smaller as individuals move through mid-career.-key question 2. Please define what it means to be in a Senior Student Affairs position. probing

question 3. If you were ready to move into a senior level position, how would it impact your

decision if you needed to move to another institution and/or move out of the area to attain a position? If you have a family? Probing question

4. Talk about your reaction to the idea of feeling “stuck” at mid-career because of the inability to advance beyond mid-career. probing questions

5. If you choose to leave the field, discuss how your skills and experiences would translate outside of higher education. Probing question

ATTRITION IN STUDENT AFFAIRS AT MID-CAREER 1. What reasons would cause you to consider leaving the field after working in mid-

career? –key question 2. Research cites low salaries and burnout as the two most common reasons given

for mid-career individuals leaving the field. If raising salaries and decreasing responsibilities are currently not available options to combat the problem of attrition, how else could institutions and the field combat this problem for mid-career professionals? –key question

221

3. Again, given that low salaries and burnout are the two most common reasons why individuals leave student affairs, why do you think more people choose to remain in field then leave? –key question

4. If you chose to leave student affairs, talk about why or why you would not remain in higher education. Probing question

IN THE MIDDLE: HOW THE EXPERIENCE DEFINES MID … · IN THE MIDDLE: HOW THE EXPERIENCE DEFINES...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE MIDDLE: HOW THE EXPERIENCE DEFINES MID … · IN THE MIDDLE: HOW THE EXPERIENCE DEFINES...